Furthermore, the SDM differs from the work done, for example, by DARIAH and the Network of Digital Methods in the Arts and Humanities (<ref xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" target="http://www.nedimah.eu/">NeDiMAH</ref>) <ref xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" type="note" target="n05" n="5">5 </ref> in so far as it approaches the scholarly domain from a more comprehensive perspective that tries to integrate Primitives and constituents influencing the processes of digital scholarship in the humanities and to reflect on their social construction on different layers of abstraction. Furthermore, we believe that a continuous and recursive process of modelling is ultimately the goal, not the model itself. With reference to Willard McCarty (2003, 2004 and 2005), resonating a distinction, introduced by Geertz (1973) between a model ‘of’ something and a model ‘for’ something, the SDM in that sense is a descriptive model ‘of’ the scholarly domain and as imperfect it may be, it is built for a purpose and it may fail. The benefit of this failure, for that matter, is that it emphasises the importance of modelling in many respects. As for the modelling of scholarly practices of the digital humanities may further the self-reflection and pattern discovery resulting in new models ‘of’ these practices as well as in models ‘for’ the conduct of such new modes of digital scholarly activities in the Virtual Research Environments developed concomitantly. The SDM attempts to provide an explicit but not definite set of constituents to initiate a self-reflected development of Research Environments for Digital Scholarship in the Humanities on the basis of scholarly practices going beyond infrastructure.