<text><body>
<div><head>ALLC Roadmap Meeting, Pisa, April 2002</head>

<p>This year's mid-term committee meeting of the <xref url="http://www.allc.org">Association for
  Literary and Linguistic Computing</xref> was branded as a
  <soCalled>roadmap</soCalled> meeting (apparently a current vogue
  word for meetings devoted to navel gazing) which might hopefully
  produce some content for a <title>New Directions in Humanities
  Computing</title> panel session to be held at the close of this
  year's ALLC-ACH conference. In addition to ALLC committee members,
  the meeting, organized and chaired by David Robey and Harold Short,
  was attended by a small number of hand-picked invited experts from
  the field; I was given the task of presenting a summary of the
  issues raised during the course of the two day discussion, so had to
  pay attention. <xref url="0204pisaplans.htm">The meeting</xref> was held in Pisa, so the dinners were
  good. </p>

<p>Each of the five sessions was supposed to address the same
  questions (<q>Where are we now?</q>, <q>Where are we headed?</q>, <q>What
  should our agenda be?</q>) from the perspective of the following five different
  application areas: 
  <soCalled>linguistics</soCalled> (Laslo Hunyadi and Elisabeth Burr);
  <soCalled>literary studies</soCalled> (Paul Fortier and Lisa-Lena
  Opas-Hanninen); <soCalled>Bibliography and  textual
   criticism</soCalled> (John Dawson and Wilhelm Ott);
  <soCalled>Libraries and archives</soCalled>(Espen Ore, Marilyn
  Deegan, Susan Hockey);  <soCalled>Multimedia and performance
   studies</soCalled> (Lorna Hughes and Jean Anderson);
  <soCalled>Methodologies and digital scholarship</soCalled> (Willard
  McCarty and Harold Short).
 </p>

<p>I took a lot of notes, from which I distilled a final summary that
  seemed to go down quite well. You can read these notes at 
<xref url="0204pisanotes.txt">0204pisanotes.txt</xref>; here's
  a briefer and possibly less tactful summary of the chief conclusions I drew from
  the experience:
<list>
<item>the major application areas for computers in the humanities
    disciplines continue to be in linguistics, textual criticism, and
    (arguably) library science;
</item>

<item>in all of these areas, the research agenda is dictated by the
    discipline specialists; similarly, in other areas such as digital
    cultural heritage, all the significant developments are being
    undertaken by technical or cultural specialists, not by by
    cross-disciplinary theoreticians; </item>

<item>a wider understanding of the theory and practice of textuality, markup, and
    text-encoding remains arguably the only substantive result of the
    last two decades of <soCalled>humanities
    computing</soCalled></item>

<item>the major contribution currently made by <soCalled>humanities
    computing</soCalled> specialists is in brokering collaborative
    work involving specialists from technical and non-technical
    disciplines;</item>

<item>no-one had much of any substance to say about information
    extraction, data mining, distance learning, distributed computing,
    or other creative applications of the technology <!--: which might lead
    one uncharitably to suspect that most of the experts assembled for
    this meeting no longer have their fingers on any of the pulses
    most people would recognize as constituting leading-edge
    developments in the applications of C&amp;IT -->.</item>

   </list>
</p>
<p>However, as I said, the dinners were very good.</p>
  </div>
 </body>
</text>