**** NOTES USED FOR MY FINAL SUMMARY ********** Questions: Where are we now? What are the trends? What should the agenda be? and parenthetically [Who am us anyway?] ---Linguistics---- + theoretical vs. applied linguistics, linguistic methodologies have different emphases + computers are used - for corpus-based work, especially dictionaries - as parsing systems, focussing on syntax and morphology - in cognitive linguistics for modelling semantics - in applied linguistics, "text analysis" in the full sense(it seems inappropriate to distinguish literary and linguistic approaches here; cf Leech, Short et al) - for foreign lang teaching - in language and speech technologies + important methodologies/resources - markup and better tools to support its use/profit from its application - broadening of techniques from text studies to other types of material (speech, multimodal communicn) - quantitiative methods Trends - multimodality - language industries becoming commercially significant - modelling of language - largescale IR/ "data mining" techniques - web as corpus Agenda - investigate better what is going on (inquiry/survey/corpus analysis ) - motivate and involve younger scholars - virtual institute for training and materials - software development Concerns expressed - the way we think in humanities is diff from the way engineers think - wishlists dont work as a way of devising software; get primitives into the hands of the user ---Literary Studies-- Where are we? Mainstream literary scholarship doesnt use computers, tho quantitative analysis tools may have an effect on next generation of teachers. "literary study is fundamentally different from linguistics, because it focusses on outliers" (PF) is main use of computer texts therefore to establish the background against which we assess specific texts? what is essential is the production of an interpretation. computers help by - assembling more and more varied evidence - enabling preservation and sharing of interpretations Where are we going? - [dr]econstructon of the canon - facilitation of playful rearrangement of text - return to focus on the ontology of text - broadening of focus to include nontextual information, breakdown of literary forms - nothing in digital form is ever finished: your contribution to ongoing debate --- Bibliography and text crit ---- Where are we? Presentations focussed on current tools for (a) creating and managing traditional bibliogs (b) traditional textual editing. Messages: - formalism / markup scheme have been defined but are not widely implemented: people use nonstandard tools - generic tool kits like Tustep can be adapted to serve different views of what editing actually is What matters is the markup system. Not the software, but the detail of markup. Not all humanists understand this, because they are still using typewriters not computers. They forget (or are not told) that the computer is a tool, not just a presentation system. (Cf Coombs and Renear on future of scholarly communication) Where are we going? - presentn of integrated forms of a text (images, transcripts, edited text, metadata) modern texts, collation for documenting authorial changes. research focus on genesis of text, not variants Agenda: sharpen consciousness of editors. A new professionalism is needed. (Also concept of "uncritical edition": need to educate nonspecialists in the fundamental conceopts of textuality) As new publicn medium, computer shd offer more functionality than book, e.g. including markup, using new ways of visualising variational information Issues: software: arguments about learning curve/expense of using these tools are irrelevant: professionals shd invest more than consumers. questions of preservation and longevity artefactuality of books needs attention: the paleography of digital text is yet to be understood ------digital libraries etc------------ These presentations focussed on cases rather than tools. Where are we? Libraries are changing. New technologies for networking, metadata, information locators. New critical mass of resources, new modes of access (MD mentioned lots; also virtual reconstruction) Where are we going? + tools - automatic generation of metadata - digital preservation: -> focus on fundamentals of what object is - data mining, image retrieval, topic maps + usage - focus on identifying and finding resources rather than using them - lib community needs to work more closely with users - putting cultural heritage on the net - metadata for behaviour as well as data - role of standards to facilitate integration Agenda - track commercial tools and their developments - work on multilinguality - promote metadata standards - traditional open access: threatened by some current economic models and what MD called usual suspects Issues - metadata standards are emerging hot on the trail of networking protocols - universal internet libraries - interprofessionalism as well as interdisciplinarity -> -> hc as mediator theme: our role is to bring people together "every discipline is the centre of all knowledge. we are the only people who know that." ---- multimedia ---- Where are we? - multimedia used in esp lang teaching, performance arts, cultural heritage - new technologies (GIS, 3D mnodelling, phjysical computing, simulation, dig video, virtual reality...) Who are we? wider stakeholders, not part of HC community, technical decisions being taken elsewhere humcomp as way of mediating; in this context we dont develop technologies focus on content, not media; show how to use generic technologiues Where are we going? - dangers of digital divide - digital object repository - multilingual archives Agenda promote better understanding of licensing issues in data creators transfer of markup/metadata knowledge Issues is multimodality really different from humcomp? --- methodology --- willard/harold's overview. - theres a distrust of method and theory, which I share * technical standards * common methods * modes of publication * institutional issues * social context recurrent theme: expectn of change agenda: wider awareness and collaboration systematic understanding of common methodologies "frequently answered questions" what is digital scholarship? is it any different from any other? Here are my answers: * computing offers a means of communication which cuts across traditional social structures in unpredictable, occasionally infuriating, but generally beneficial ways. As an example, I would cite the number of internet based research projects which would otherwise simply have been unable to achieve significant presence in the world because of the accidents of geographic dispersal. * digital systems foster, embody, and support a fragmented, nonlinear, decentred, view of text and textuality * perhaps related to the former point, the computer offers those interested in the use of language itself incomparably better tools than we have had hitherto; in particular, they enable new kinds of evidence and new methods for their assessment and incorporation into language teaching; particularly in Europe, where multilinguality is a major political desideratum, this means that language processing technologies are central to the concerns of the state as well as those of the academy. * Finally, digital techniques offer us a cheap and universal medium for the description, distribution, and analysis of all kinds of pre-existing cultural artefacts. If we, in the Academy, do not bring our expertise in these areas to the table, do we seriously imagine that others will hold off from doing so? Or that we will be pleased with the results? The interdisciplinary nature of Humanities Computing has very difficult implications for the highly discipline-specific administrative structures which characterize European universities. Susan: OK, but where's the agenda? Willard: we shd do this more often. Gramsci met his chums in a swiss castle weekly. Harold: agenda as in what we do now? Or agenda for our field? Susan: This is groundwork for a map. Harold: if we can develop a clear agenda with priorities, it might attract funders. AZ: Starting is good. We have waited 20/30 years for this. Robey: send it to me in prose by 21 april. ************************* NOTES FROM SESSION 1 (LINGUISTICS) ************************** roadmap mtg 1. where are we now in humanities computing; recent devs 2. where are we going; promising recent devs 3. what shd agenda be 4 new methodologies for research 5 new approaches to teaching changing functions and roles of our work in society focus whole conf on these. improve focus of conf outcomes shd be intro conf abstracts "draft roadmap" - all partix notes to robey by 21 apr - draft circulated by end May basis for plenary at conf wsh leads to intro to LLC special number; book on "state of art in humcomp" lazlo: easy and diff position easy because we think we did what david asked; also because we discussed before. diff because we are first; also because "linguist" -- diff between them and literature. defined by job? 1. who are "we"? we humanists? we linguists? following trad 3fold classifcn of linguistics theoretical/applied/methodoloy theoretical: they use computer for a) dictionaries, from corpora, nowadays including speech b) parsing: syntax and morphology (also used by applied linguists) c) cognitive ling ? for modelling aspects of semantics ... applied: a) text analysis in broad sense, combining with literature; information retrieval in broader sense. the more info added to a text, the more we can extract. Elisabeth says is it appropriate to distinguish lit and ling. basis of all studies is speech/text. What is specific to lit studies? concept of "style" is not purely literary concept, applies also to linguistic analysis. it's a variety. for publication support; not just lit or ling -- contextual info. b) (foreign) lang teaching: increasingly interactive. some specific courses already, tho not on phonology. possible new ways: collaboration in curriculum dev c) language technology: linguists losing out to engineers and statistician. "the way we think in humanities is diff from the way engineers think" - clumsy, ugly... knowledge of linguist lacking. automatic q/a system. Speech technology. Methodology/tools the way we look at topic is influenced by frameworks/methods tools: a. markup : ever developing; needs lang technology support; prosodic material needs prosodic markup (e.g. toebi). b. corpus studies - a general phenomenon - we need more spoken corpora marked up. creating them is very fashionable. "oral language" (BURR) multilingual, design reflecting variety of language. corpus theory needs development. c. quantitative linguistics: "has its own history" tools used by everyone, not just linguists. d. knowledge needs dissemination via e.g. workshops 2. whither linguists? theoretical ling: - logical modelling of lang e.g. prolog, lisp, where testing is done by computer. - models of universal grammar applied: - foreign lang teaching - speech technology methods: - markup markup markup 3. agenda a. inquiry: set up broad databasee for present/future needs and plans what are their tools and what are their needs? b. involvement of young scholars by offering some motivation c. Virtual Institute of Humanities Computing - cd offer online courses/degrees; publications, WIP; software development and integration for HC. There are many concordance and text analysis programs; corpus s/w developers and users shd get together. Willard says: collection of wishlists dont work. process is deeply flawed. people dont know what they want till they have it; dont have any way of working out. thinking our way towards a set of primitives comes from this approach. s/w dev is v expensive. get ability to make things into the hands of people who want them. - LB: corpus s/w dev is done by corpus users; modularity issue corpus theory components: representative issue: problematizing the issue. what goes into a corpus? citation of older stages in lang shdnt be excluded from modern lang corpus. willard: corpus building is a research topic? whats special about computer usage therein? [david interrupts] lisalena: hc is reaching down into lower levels of schools; using HC skills to teach eng (what are HC skills tho -- web searching?) it turns out yes. we've got an online phonology course [distance learning issues] what is HC then? Susan: we have a lot to offer the world out there; Robey: *advanced* knowledge is our subject, tho not just in universities Susan: the agenda is different then. most students dont end up in academia. Willard: how to connect with world tho... have to do both. LL: how does this serve society? by teaching skills which are useful. robey: use of computers for advanced knowledge; what this does for other areas of culture and society espen: what is happening to represntation of metatext? eg unicode work. harold: scale of evidence. less work to complete the whole than to do part. robey: whats exciting in linguistics? cf bowman: using digital imaging techniques developed for reading ancient texts. burr: lablita: combining text and video; availability. harold: elra. laslo: lang technology. speech. az: govt proposing conf on promotion of Italian lang. speech has many more applicns than written exciting thing is multimodality elra makes available corpora if publicly funded; private funding not; lexica are becoming best-sellers because they give semantic properties speech to speech translation why lit and ling? at beginning, ling techniques as a means of access to literary insight. hockey: applicn of lang tech to older langs also possible also endangered langs and minority langs robey: in cibit, there's a wonderful tool, parsed version of divine comedy; no use on its own tho -- if you had it for all texts ... willard: why lit and ling together, methodology helps. datatype matters more than tools. cf historian. what are specific issues lit persons ask? ott: there are common topics, e.g. prosody laslo: we use proper linguistic models, engineers dont. burr: more people and more insights are needed to make good software harold: theoretical vs applied linguistics -- is this a meaningful distinction? and do we agree on them cognitive linguistics and cognitive science (psychology) LL: why did you say we need quantitative tools? Laslo: linguists need numeric skills and knowledge robey: we've identified - dev of large multimodal speech corpora - speech technologies - modelling - info retrieval Willard: web as corpus to be exploited ************************* NOTES FROM SESSION 2 (LITERARY STUDIES) ************************** Robey: - output will be questions as much as answers/trends - book will not come immediately - laslo says we dont know enough about what's happening Opas/Fortier - neither of them has done any homework where are we now? - mainstream literary scholarship doesnt use computers - stylistics is applied linguistics - new methodology for research has developed, e.g. quantitative analysis tools - those who learn from what we've used have new perspectives, which are passed on where are we going? - use of hypertexts in lit studies, way to market computers - markup wont be wanted because it's done by someone else - literary texts seem to have disappeared, but is coming back along with authorship - using more modern texts: canonicity Lorna: - decline of theory. return to study of text. issues of the text (authorship). Willard: older texts just begun to be worked on properly. markup as a way of making older readings accesible in new ways. How what we do with computers affects what we do. No literary allusions in modern writers. So how do you handle what modern authors are doing, without being able to explain allusion. intertextuality. paul fortier: lit is an art which uses lang as its medium. we dont need to justify art, its part of human condition. ling studies lang in general form. lit studies particular use of lang in particular text, even one author. lit studs fundamentally diff from linguistics, because it focusses on outliers. Butor quote; minds shd be constantly alerted; useful critic is equally creative. essential of lit studs is interpretn/of individual. identifying the author is honourable, but not essential. converting texts to e-form, concording, databases, is not essential. esswential is interprtn, narrative, prosiody, dramatic structure. markup problem is magician problem. interprtn changes in every genern; nominalist controversy seems to have stopped. large scale data gathering is now possible. stat analytic tools are wonderful. mathematics vast majority of colleagues are defensive. hope is in students. - laborious work of deep markup - large corpora what do lit scholars do that is computable? ability to focus on more channels of communicn: as physical artefact, visual appearance, parallel constructs: eg annotation affects interprets. multimodality. lit studs/perf studies. mcgann and drucker: ivanhoe game, radiant textuality. playful rearrangement. post-theory stage. return to : ontology of text, artefactuality. arising out of ability to have multimedia forms. marilyn: cf rosetti archive. using computnl metaphors for exploring media and abilities. multiple means of access to textual archive: actually it's not, what this means is that it's potentially accessible: (the art that conceals art) use of computer games. rockwell. film studies. narratology. multiple cross-readings of texts. technology provides method for doing the analysis, but not the way of doing the interpretn comparative lit studies facilitated e.g. kings project ren fiction in spain and eng; compar ling analysis. whatabout writing? constructs and cut-ups. whole new set of ideas. if ref and interpretive wks are primary, basing them on such evanscent forms is problematic. students use texts for things to grab quotes from. chunking of information. adapative hypermedia. dodds 1940s edition [] encloses bits that schoolboys arent meant to read. - what is biz of lit - canon deconstruction/reconstruction metamorphic work needs metamorphic interprtn not the structure, but a means of accessing many structure. my interpretation. making yr interptn public is yr contribn to ongoing process technologies are forcing us to broaden defn of what is literary. cf institnl structures -- prof of film studies within lit dept. Lorna: grad studts get closer to text by marking it up, access becomes more ubiquitous. engage directly with primary sources. projects to programs: nothing in digital form is ever finished. how far has the non-specialist use of technology been influenced by specialist use? people do web searching plagiarism: techn tools to detect. way of engaging our peers in comp sci. digital copyright. - how tech changes ways people work - how tech affects work they might do stylistics: statistical analysis effects e.g. in word. burroughs: applcn of stats in new areas. david robey's work ? ************************* NOTES FROM SESSION 3 (BIBLIOGRAPHY AND TEXT CRIT) ************************** Dawson: bibliography tools: tools for preparing bibs; databases which can be searched search yr own database and output refs in specific format tools require and enforce consistency key stds for formalization: BibTeX; TEI none of common packages outputs TEI formalisn exists but not the tools reqd to prepare/use them scientists need hands held to do bibliogs? Endnote only system now available for all platforms (other packages/approaches listed) most people are appalling at typing factual info. exporting from lib catalogs. real innovation is web based catalogs, that include links to similar refs. biblios of bibliogs can be kept up to date. Ott: Tustep is general purpose program with Package for bibliogs. Tustep home page lists 150 titles of users. Brinkhus univ librarian defined program for bibliog work, tuebingen bibliographie programme; used for major catalog of incunables in german univs; what matters is markup system. Not the software, but the detail of markup. Not all humanists understand this, they are using typewriters not computers. Textcrit/scholarly editing overview: tools developed in the computer as a tool era (not as a communicns medium) therefore focus on things that cdnt be done otherwise - collection of variants by automatic collation many tools around, not all survived. Collate. Tustep Compare. Both produce databases. - problems of stemmatology : focus on ancient texts. Impossible without computer. Evolutionary biology influence. (Kurt Aland: 3 mss gk new test edition 1987; he wasnt happy with ott's stats, he wanted a stemma; ott wdnt do clustering for him so resigned. "after 10 years they published it as I left it") - modern texts, collation for documenting authorial changes. research focus on genesis of text, not variants. best eg Gabler's edn Ulysses. "new philogy" diplomatic editions - diff versions not seen as witnesses; editing purity. comforting for editors! computer as publication medium. appeal to judgmt of reader. against authority. confusion of terms: "editing" vs "making available in electronic form". Encoding stds help structure texts, but no replacement for scholarly effort. collation/indexing etc needs other tools. where are we going? see SpMcQ in Finneran 1996. Agenda: sharpen consciousness of editors. new professionalism is needed. computer as editorial tool, not prosthesis. Tustep home page lists lots of examples of use of tustep as publicn means, from 1972 onwards. automatical linking of apparatus, index generation, text versions, genetic apparatus, collation etc. edit once, use many. software: arguments about learning curve/expense of using these tools are irrelevant: professionals shd invest more than consumers. computer as publicn medium: not just as surrogate for expensive book but with its own potential: offering more functionality; so just include the naked markup text in distribution. questions of preservation, longevity copyright issues. computer literacy Mccarty: "books in winding sheets not swaddling clothes" (McGann) prejudices abt nature of text built into classical editions. what do you think about potential of tustep to respond to these crits: ability to rethink nature of text? Ott: I think dev of computing and popstmodern ideas go in parallel. an edition is not just a collection of materials. as a consumer of the text I want to rely on critical judgmt of someone who has gone thro texts. Computer as tool can be multipurpose: tools are there but awareness is not. Robey: you've shown what has been done in past. what are the exciting new developments? combining trad crit ed with images would be persuasive e.g. new ed of divine comedy. images/transcripts/editing doesnt have to be interesting to be good hum comp ore: computer presentation on screen gives new way of presenting critical edition. publishers only want famous authors. marilyn: huge complexity in making understandable 7 different versions. hockey: hengwyrt ms mccarty: imperative to rethink old devices. simon goldhill what does "cf" mean in older editions? ott: apparatus which is autogenerated can be reformatted in many ways, with links instead of line numbers. ore: new ways of presenting informn. ott: distinguish preparatory work from presentn. robey: bracketting bibliog and textcrit, includes scientific study of printed books. anything to say on this? mccarty: artefactuality of the book. we are only some years away from 3d holographic projections. so we'll be able to do all kinds of stuff. what does this do to how you conceptualise the ms. short: how to make sense of increasingly limitless possibilities of what can be included in edition. no systematic thinking as yet. mccarty: embed that in the docuverse. elements of crit edition assembled by user on demand; questions of contextualisn beciome important. assumptions about reader ability differ in differ commentaries. short: in history also : shift to just gathering evidence from also making judgment. scholars are supposed to distill their wisdom. mccarty: just because you can, do you want always to add links. jean: is anyone teaching this? creating crit edns isnt what students do. susan: i try to get people to think about this. you get them to think about the issues. mccarty: do we still want traditional scholarly forms? are we remaking them? ott: not a new discussion. also in printed editions. problem with web based editions is that source of electronic editions tend to be concentrated in a few places. hockey: economic models of electronic publishing are diff from others, people dont have longterm sense of costs. deegan: people dont know what values are longterm. robey: selfpublishing? nelson. fortier: scholarship is choice. temptation of throwing undigested data at readers. deegan: printing things out is only way of keeping things. burnard: critical editing technologies for digital media. paleography of electronic forms. (cf lavagnino, fiormonte) ore: printout with e-editions. ott: copyright matters. authors shd insist on electronic availability. ************************* NOTES FROM SESSION 4 (DIGITAL LIBRARIES) ************************** espen: digital libraries/texts/data now working at nat deposit libratry in oslo. considering accessioning of digital texts, including norwegian webpages. procedures for version control and storage. ebooks. obsolescence problems: virtual machines or migration methods. identification of electronic texts. DOI/URN diff user groups in libs : traditional librarians/ scholars/ general public. metadata is sexy. libraries, archives, museums all hold mss. "field catalogue" widely used in museums, implemented in diff ways. asrchives use finding aids type things. nat lib uses own system, based on pre-existing card catalogues. how to describe them for all user groups, at theoretical level. There has been some work done in this way (EAD Master Malvine) Leaf building nat authority files. deegan: digital library research. libraries are changing greatly under influence of web etc. but not specific to llc. 3 things - methodological work . formalisms, - ways of looking at humanistic knowledge space that shd feed into diglib rsrch community - dig resources for the humanities. critical mass of data is being produced anyway dig lib rsrch: compsci+info science, engineering approach. vs. digital library where are we now? complex work in networking protocols. info retrieval. complex linking of library objects SFX commercialised by exlibris. new work on info locators openurl urn doi, not specifically humanities, OAIS. complex metadata EAD TEI MOA METS drh: availability of gutenberg bibles online Keio, Gottingen, BL, Camb. comparable side by side. biblioteca universalis. eebo project integrates catalog records, page images, transcriptions. 3d object mgt systems. bl newspaper turning pages. diamond sutra, sherborne missal. worldwide digital library xanadu. where are we going? automatic genern of metadata (pipex) microfilm-> xml autoconvertor. digital preservn : impt because it focuses on what digital objects are migration/preservn fedora: flexible extensible digital object repository architecture info retrieval. keywording. kline. verity search engine. thesauri topic trees. gamma site. multilinguality and unicode. gujrati font is 5 mb. query by image content. ebooks. new modes of publication: new kinds of corpora. agenda? investigate commercial tools. multilingual work. character sets. maps databases. automated metadata extraction. worldwide diglib. obstacles are usual culprits: stds interoperability copyright preservation payment and licensing issues. users and readers who are they? impacts for lifelong learning. expecting people to learn very quickly. hockey: mostly abt future cos I'm getting old. will the internet be everyone's library? lib world is larger, with better defined stds and practices. interacn between info profesionals and users. in bk world, clear distincn between librarian's role of making text avail vs how you use it. in our world, projects are combined with tools. lots of bks used in lots of ways. tei ahead of time in trying to do this. diglib projects who adopt it have been unadventurous? how can we generalise it? its expensive to create dig resources. find out what people want to do before deciding what to give them. people who use archival resources are 90% family historians. what level do we want to reach: general public? making cultural heritage on network accessible. hc has a lot to contribute -- drh is only venue where these communities meet. hc contributd to metadata. need for source. (Michael and I at dublin core meeting). Diglib focus is on secondary sources rather than primary, hence concerned with finding/access rather than using. internet has overtaken. tei ext pointers facilitate ways of linking multiple access points. EG Middle eng collecn of texts, bibliog, annotn... whose role is it to build these systems. how can we contribute to putting cultural heritage on the net, given expense, how generalize it. Willard: Marilyn sd we have to take account of X. We solve complex problems so we can solve simple ones. We shd value what we know, the value of humanities computing. Dawson: Espen, when you collect webpages how do you decide what to keep, what to follow? All within the NO domain. Ott: so you keep HTML/XML. Shdnt you store underlying database? Short: database vs data storage. Data saved in obsolete formats archiving web pages is a diff problem tho paul: libraries have trashed card catalogs. we cant read 10 yr old digital records. we have large contribns to make. willard: source research in med studs. nature of sources in middle ages is different. cf today's correcn of sources. medievalists can tell us something about version control. short: fedora recognises that digital objects have behaviour as well as conttent. metadata to describe and invoke behaviour as well as catalog it. new kind of bibliography needed for dig objects, has to include behaviour. lou: oais not olac deegan: authenticity. accretions to object are not obvious, so can be silently changed. authentication. encryption. willard: forgetting is useful paul: authentication is not so useful susan: we need a way of tracking changes. digital versions are not stable. burr: info extraction/retrieval is like text analysis. jean: we cant know what people will want, so we cant record metadata. lou: why need for metadata: need for access by different communities. bnc story. marilyn: tltp: all started off using toolbook, had to be rerun to use web. robey: national and international agencies now require applicn of standards and appropriate tech support, e.g. ahds. hockey: wont happen in USA. deegan: digital preservation cooperative (OCLC) is aiming to establish stds. 25k for DLF membership. willard: people dont know what they want. we shd look at social science skills. elicitn of what people want is difficult. rsrch isnt about having a clear goal. creative play -- discovery by experimenting. short: stability of printed text as paradigm; paradigm of established knowledge. validation of experimental science dawson: interdisciplinarity - linguists and historians dont know what they want, we can tell them. deegan: some librarians say we shd go on doing what we always did, the rest is scholarship. Others want to add something. But intellectual work is expensive. hockey: provision of search tools means you are responsible for its content (!) dawson: trad view of librarians job is that it's boring, but this makes their job more interesting hockey: taxonomy/classification of knowledge is not boring short: tei has influenced availability of masses of data ; set of tools available * focus on computer as presentation more than as tool * previous session on production, this one on reception short: extraction of data previously unavailable e.g. CSAD work. interdisciplinarity is important. ore: as a papyrologist, yes. robey: interdisciplanirtty or interprofessionality: gap between librarians and academics lorna: getting music professionals to talk to comp scie requires humcomp as bridge (internet2) willard: gallison book on manhattan project: trading zone metaphor for pidgins intercultural zone. lorna: also professional development issue. cf job descriptions on humanist. hockey: people underestimate complexity robey: learning dev officer profession ninch: lack of skills in project mgt: ninch guide for what people dont know. lou: oxf changes: learning technologies; progt mgt. necessitated by shift to project based research marilyn: nof digitize program provide rsrch support function. susan: all people who do our libraries program, have training on project mgt willard: jaroslav pelikan: idea of university (1985). research vs support services. need to restablish the research enterprise. global diglib as framework of future for distribn of knowledge inevitable engagement of info professional in creation of knowledge world in which user builds own world interoperability : diglib frames everything, and web determines it all "we" HAVe a role for ourself in this. bringing people together. every discipline is the centre of all knowledge. we are the only people who know that. ************************* NOTES FROM SESSION 5 (MULTIMEDIA & PERFORMANCE) ************************** Lorna 1. things happening multimedia used in everything, but esp. lang teaching; hypertext editions; MOA, speech corpus, multifunction as well as multimedia * networked performance/cultural heritage - eg using internet2 space to develop interactive multisite performances; interactive courses as performance. diffs with technology * 3d modelling eg GIS systems museum of chinese in the americas; archaeology and art history examples. knossos Physical computing eg MIT, wearable computers, applications lacking Virtual reality: eg virtual kiosks, museum tours Simulation eg humanitarian simuln project to train aid workers (marilyn, tall, columbia), archaeological digs Audio: speech and music eg Indiana Univ Music Archive, Dbases of scotts traditional music Moving images: online video, franklin furnace, shoah foundation -- research projects; resource creation; resources management often same person does all these things where are we now? who are we - present constituency ach allc, humcomp - wider stakeholders: performers, technicians, network expwerts - archives, museums, libraries - visual imaging, multimedia professionals : these people are not yet part of our community advances in this area are informed by activities and r&d in - education (academics and teachers) from perf studies, film studies, anthropology - industry: multimedia, imaging, network technology - comp sci and engineering - arts professions, performers and artists - entertainment industry, film tv - designers of teaching and performance spaces - cultural heritage organizations: archives, museums Stakeholders need to collaborate and talk projects come from many areas, many professions, many disciplines: - humcomp as the glue between the specialists (performance dept and network guru) academics not engaged in technical development methodology is starting to catch up with the tools tools are now generic at the desktop (imacs come with dig video capability) separation of format and content - media is focus instead of content where are we going? - costs of digitization, equipment, staff - bandwidth: lack of access to highspeed networks - metadata, esp for moving images; retrieval is v difficult - moving image archive at NYU (METS initiative) sustainability: - playback devices, technical obsolescence scalability: can small - projects afford it? prototyping is not the best method preservation: - analog vs digital. LC audo, Shoah both use analog as preservn - format. storage/filesize compression: preservation master is made, - access to derivative file collaboration within institutions, broader - sharing, across institns, across disciplines copyright of streaming - material, berkely art museum, payment mechanisms for downloading - music files legal issues: sharing courseware involves legislation - technical standards are coming from industry, not from academic - world glimmers of hope global digital library -> content not form born digital materials -> increasingly this is the case (so?) dig object repositories -> very exciting project FEDORA testers involve audio, moving image as well as text wireless technologies -> unclear as to how successful multilingual initiatives - unicode archiving initiatives -> internet2 working group from CNI automation of processes and procedures -> integrn of multimedia into bldg design -> increasing dissemn of expertise e.g. ninch activies, NEH and Getty funded project databases Robey: emphasis is on educational activities rather than research? -> not nessa. performance things are more accessible to students any crossover from performance studies? it's informed by other concerns anyway. becoming self-aware as a result of having to deal with performance who are we: rights issues: people dont understand ownership issues. e-carrel digital distribution: legal issues, money making. licensing issues. transferring of ownership vs licensing use. establish code of practice. CORBIS went round buying up rights, education on non-exclusive rights. international aspects are also problematic. paul: administrators have the idea that prof x can be replaced by video. lorna: tltp project as example marilyn: quantification of teaching time jean: this actually happened in tltp lorna: ties into the copyright argument; it can be assigned to individual teachers; being able to license materials and be able to repeat these materials organizational ownership of teaching stuff susan: presentn of info places emphasis on teaching, rather than research. willard: computing concretizes, makes research exportable to classroom hockey: web as medium for presentn of info rather than analysis robey: when talking about these resources, are you creating new kinds of knowledge lorna: are we doing things we couldnt do before? yes; integration and combination of resources short: globe theatre records rehearsals, productions, interviews for every production. all in analog form. they're not the only ones. lorna: online connected tools. p2p processing. marilyn: simulation as well. work of art restorn. mccarty: whether or not it cd have been done, what are consequences of it being done? if interactive reaction is fast, then you ask diff kinds of questions robey: most promising areas of multimedia activity are not represented in our conf programme. lou: BASE type of corpus laura: our role is being honest brokers, bringing specialists together. fedora for example. ninch is another one. technologies are accessible. robey: but we're not doing things ourselves, we're brokering. short: ahds -- sp with greatest difficulty is PADS hockey: what do people who work with performing technologies need to learn from those who work with text? - markup and metadata jean: i dont see anything diff in what i do with multimedia and what i did with text disciplines are differently empowered: multimedia seems more relevant to some than to others why did ads do so well? trading wars: political question, not methodological. ************************* NOTES FROM SESSION 6 (METHODOLOGY) ************************** Mccarty Distrust of "method" in humanities. Gadamer: humanities not about reaching general laws. Reconceive method as modelling, heuristic. Observations cant be denied,fundamentals must be fitted,. "theory" is a danger signal .... definition of humanities computing wrt methods and institutions where are we now * ( -post tei) technical standards for... -metadata/diglib/interoperability -cultural heritage -creative and performing arts -preservation formats * methods (which are common - modes of desciption (thesauri, topic maps) - intyersection betweem disciplines - multiple technologies (3rd generation) - new modes of collaborn (interprof, interdisc) - modelling (crucial element: forces people to think abt data - consequences - systemic instability (things dont stay stable for long * modes of publication -local, consortia, global - re-purposing, multi-purposing (specific projects/wider applicns - scholarship and economics - interlinking of resources - interoperability and integration - preservation * institutional issues - new structures and relationshjips - funding mnodels - infrastructure - development and training (academic/professional) NOW Social context: commercial/industrial priorities/ economic environment Difgital culture: students ariving need it we can helpn them get ready, tho its too late WHERE ARE WE GOING * tech stds invention, extension, convergence expect change * methods common vocabs empirical research new theoretical models expectn of change * modes of publicn global digital lib new economics expectn of change * institutions new perspectives/roles new territories e-university expectn of change * social context digital culture expectn of change AGENDA * wider awareness of institutions and projects * wider collaboration * systematic explorn/understanding of methodological commons * systematic explorn/understanding of clouds of knowing Finally,digital scholarship? what is it? Kenny said he expected academics would have to study statustical methods 10 yrs ago. But will probably have to study a lot more, judging by willard's diag. Ott: temporal Hockey: diagram misses knowledge representation aspects Mccarty: modelling is a better term - model of something vs model for something (goertz). gain manipulatory power over something you cant approach. a device that allows you to test your understandin. by defn cant be true, includes behaviours. drive model to break, so you can see why - experimental model to see what you know Hockey: in compsci. modelling represents something robey: in the days of cultureal theory, it was impt to think no direct connexion between theory, method, practice. Much computing is to do with modelling of method. Nowadayas method problems relate to diff issues of modelling short: using yr construction to create new models susan: defin of terms confused by meaning of model lou: defines model: abstraction short: you can model your understanding of a text in markup susan: behaviours? are those part of the markup robey: what you can do to it also involves modelling. * what is hc? is it a discipline? general feeling that we shdnt open that question. * expectation of change theme; humanities projects expect continuity how do computers help us carry on despite change change -- institutional -- technological -- infrastructural connectivity only began recently espen: i can remember talking to willard abt this ages ago we havent been talking abt those clouds: this is the new bit. sneakernet. fortier: lukacs was doing this at time of 1st world war; goldman in 50s. why it requires technology. cross disciplinarity forces us to act as mediator.