Page Tree:

Child pages
  • BIP 0.5 Scholarly Networking

This wiki space contains archival documentation of Project Bamboo, April 2008 - March 2013.

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata


This is an outline for Phase 1 (24 months) of a Bamboo Implementation Proposal.

The purpose of this document is to provide information to institutions and organizations participating in the Bamboo Planning Process so that they can help determine (1) the long term future of Bamboo and (2) define what activities Bamboo will carry out in its first implementation phase. The intent of this document is to solicit community input toward the ongoing development and revision of the implementation proposal. As this is an early draft, it is not yet a commitment to carry out all or any of this work.

Please note that we are updating this document frequently based on wide ranging input from the Bamboo community. These updates will occur periodically and will be indicated as ".1", ".2", ".3", etc updates. In addition, we will occasionally make major document revisions. These are noted as "1.X", "2.X", and so forth. Between major document revisions there may be some inconsistencies in language used between the sections of the document.

4.1 - Scholarly Networking

4.1.1 Summary

In collaboration with institutions, scholarly societies, and other development projects, the Scholarly Networking area of work will create two types of software: a set of small components, which we're calling "gadgets", that will plug in to and enhance existing research environments, social platforms, and collaborative forums; and a group of new services, which will filter information from several sources (including the Atlas) and supply relevant and interesting material to the gadgets. Together, these gadgets and services will build connections among people from all professions within the Arts & Humanities research community, for the purpose of inspiring collaborations and discovering new resources across Bamboo and beyond. Several teams will develop these gadgets and connection services, each providing specific scholarship-centric networking and/or resource exchange functionality. The defining vision of the Scholarly Networking area is to actively deliver interesting and relevant connections directly into the places where scholars already do their work.

4.1.2 Description

The first year of work will focus on identifying, specifying, and creating gadgets and connection services which focus on the needs of scholars, teaching, research by supporting the building of relationships among individuals and projects.

Sidebar: The Cocktail Party and the Concierge

Participants in Workshop Two raised the metaphor of the cocktail party and the concierge. As attendees circulate around a cocktail party, sharing their thoughts in whatever convivial manner appeals to them most, they might encounter old colleagues, make introductions, form new relationships, listen to the prevailing topics and tone in order to draw their own assessment of the zeitgeist, overhear something interesting and join a conversation, or draw a crowd of likeminded individuals by introducing a particularly interesting topic. The digital realm makes possible a vast quantity of potential cocktail parties -- i.e. social platforms, discussion forums, and virtual research environments, as well as access to a wider range of colleagues, opportunities, and resources. This abundance of opportunities introduces its own set of problems, however -- in particular, how to find the cocktail parties that are most interesting and most relevant. To improve the likelihood of finding the right parties, one might call upon a concierge -- someone who can quickly understand your needs, who knows what's going on in your area of interest and who can get you instant access to the party. In our proposal, the concierge function is performed by the connection services, and the gadgets are the way you communicate with the concierge and receive his recommendations.

The concept of a gadget goes by many different names under different platforms -- extension, plug-in, portlet, widget, add-on. This approach to developing applications places a high value on ease of installation, on clear and simple user interfaces which make use of small amounts of space, and on the use of a pre-existing platform to make new capabilities available while maintaining a level of independence from that platform. The following three examples illustrate these ideas -- Firefox/Zotero, uPortal portlets, and iGoogle. Firefox supports extensions, which enables projects like Zotero to bring new functionality directly into the browser. Zotero relies on a separate and independent group of servers and developers, and the information stored via the Zotero extension can be cited via other programs, like Microsoft Word and OpenOffice. uPortal is a popular product for producing institutional portals, which are almost entirely defined by the range of portlets that the institution chooses to install into it. Portlets range from mail and news viewers to Sakai integration, file storage, and administrative applications. These portlets are often lightweight interfaces into much larger external applications. iGoogle is a web dashboard or start page service which supports gadgets, which allows users to select from a library of hundreds of components produced primarily by other users. iGoogle gadgets range from views into calendar and mail programs to calculators, news aggregators, and translation tools, which can be added to an iGoogle homepage. iGoogle gadgets tend to be similar to portlets in their lightweight qualities. These three examples also indicate the different types of relationships which develop between platforms and their gadget producers. Bamboo's relationship to platform creators will vary by platform, but will include establishing formal liaisons when possible. In addition, this area of work will consider how to engage scholars who do not use typical networking platforms or research environments, and seek out innovative ways to connect them into the network. One useful model here may be the ad hoc networks made possible using the 'Friend Find' feature employed by several platforms, which use your e-mail address book to find connections on your behalf.

Scholarly networking connection services will draw relevant connections between individual scholars and their work to the Recipes, Narratives, Activities and other resources which are described in the Atlas, as well as other repositories and sources. The Thought Ark project, developed by Sorin Matei of Purdue University, offers an algorithmic model for building relevant connections between areas of interest and cited material, which may prove helpful here. Use of scholarly networking gadgets will enable a scholar to stay current with opportunities and ongoing work in their areas of interest. A scholar will be able to configure her gadgets to notify her (either passively or actively) as new, relevant material is added to the Atlas or as new connections become apparent. One valuable model for this kind of notification is the SWORD application, which is part of the Open University's research repository, Open Research Online (ORO). SWORD allows the posting of research results into the ORO from Facebook, and notifies the scholar's Facebook friends automatically. Another feature we will explore, jointly with the Atlas, is the role that commenting and discussion should play in scholarly networking. The SNEEP application, which allows for commenting on the ORO, offers an interesting model here.

Work in this area will seek to address several vital concerns about the continuing role of technology-enabled scholarly networking in the overall higher education and research landscape, including notions of motivation and incentive, and safeguards to provide appropriate respect for intellectual property and privacy.

Two aspects of security stand out: first that an institutionally secure area is still needed for a large proportion of learning materials, and for sensitive internal documents; and secondly that training is needed to make sure that staff and students are aware of where it is appropriate to publish material.

--From the case study report: "It's like a permanent corridor conversation': an exploration of technology-enabled scholarly networking at The Open University", by Linda Wilks under the supervision of John Wolffe.

This section needs elaboration on the discussion of connection services, and on motivation, intellectual property and privacy (which also need to be incorporated into the work plan). It needs a few further details on the connections between the gadget/plug-in concept and its application to specific areas (TBD) of scholarship-oriented, social-networking-like functionality. In addition, this section will elaborate the connections between Scholarly Networking and the use of the Bamboo Services Platform.

4.1.3 Value

Throughout the Bamboo planning process, many individuals and institutional teams expressed interest in using technology to keep up with what others are doing and to connect with other scholars, technologists, and librarians within and across disciplines. Further exploration of the role that technology plays in bringing scholars together is available in the case study report "'It's like a permanent corridor conversation': an exploration of technology-enabled scholarly networking at The Open University". This report surveys a variety of networking tools in use throughout the Open University, with the highest emphasis placed on the perspectives of scholars who are using them. Bamboo proposes to enhance the ways that scholars connect with resources and each other, not by building its own scholarly networking environment, but rather by (1) finding scholarship-focused methods to interconnect existing social networking tools and higher-education collaborative environments, (2) bringing together institutions and disciplinary societies in the humanities with key higher education technology initiatives, (3) helping disciplinary societies and institutions to develop key data models required for exposing information about scholarly interests and activities in the humanities (e.g., biographical / CV information), and (4) leveraging open standards and rapidly developing technologies in the social networking field. 

Community thoughts, relevant narratives, and quotes from the workshops need to be added here, including reflections on the incentives for participation (which will need to be addressed further in the workplan).

4.1.4 Work Plan

More detail based on community conversations and reflections needs to be added throughout this section.

  • Explore: Scholarly networking can be viewed through three lenses -- the lens of the institution, the lens of the scholarly society, and the lens of the individual scholar. The Explore activity will identify existing efforts from each lens, including existing platforms in use by scholars, efforts already underway by institutions to create academic profile pages, and work by scholarly societies to provide their members with new ways to connect. Together with these collaborators, Explore participants will seek out opportunities for creating gadgets which connect to existing environments, including those which might not traditionally be considered networking platforms, creating a list of candidate gadgets and connection services. Individuals and institutions participating in the Explore activity will then develop narratives to describe how a scholar might use the gadgets and services they propose. Initial community design work has indicated two initial areas of focus, CV entries and research interests, although other areas of focus may also emerge.  The CV entries portion of this area of work will, in collaboration with institutions and scholarly societies, focus on building connections among individuals based on curriculum vitae data (which might come in multiple formats and from multiple sources). The research interests area of focus will concentrate on building connections from individuals to projects, resources, and opportunities. Important partners for the research interests area include granting agencies, humanities centers, and virtual research environment developers. One particular challenge in this area will be to balance the rigidity of controlled vocabulary with user-adaptable synonymy capability. Explore participants will examine these notions in much more detail, and seek to surface and consider other areas of focus.
  • Plan: In the initial year, Plan activity will involve selecting and providing detailed specifications for a subset of the areas of focus identified in the Explore activity. Participants will assess which areas will be most useful to scholars and provide the most value relative to the level of effort required -- those which minimize duplication of existing work, make use of existing and/or forthcoming Bamboo services, and can be released as an initial version after three to six months of development. Institutions and individuals participating in the Plan portion of this area of work will then establish work teams to carry out the projects they have specified, providing each work team with a charter and initial project plan that includes a full and detailed description of what the software should do, how it will interoperate with existing platforms and which ones, and a storyboard depiction of the human interface. In addition, participants in Plan will promote appropriate liaison activity with other organizations and efforts. Potential platforms include Sakai, Ning, and Facebook. Potential specifications and standards include OpenSocial, Facebook Connect, and JSR-168.
  • Build: The Build activity will involve developing the initial round of gadgets and connection services as selected by Plan participants and work to enact the possibilities brought to light by Explore -- this translates to a minimum of two gadgets and one connection service for each chosen direction. In all cases, Bamboo services will be targeted for eventual deployment in a cloud-based environment on the Bamboo Services Platform (see section 4.3, below).

To accommodate the academic calendar and the varying demands of teaching and research projects, intensive work in this area has been broken up into two phases, which follow the same pattern but build on one another. In addition, please note that each activity (Explore, Plan, Build) feeds into the others in an overlapping pattern which is intended to stretch into year two and beyond. For example, Explore participants will proceed to plan phase 2 work while phase 1 work is still being executed by Build participants.

Participation Layer

Work to Complete in First Quarter (1/2010-3/2010 )

Work to Complete in Second Quarter (4/2010-6/2010)

Work to Complete in Third Quarter (7/2010-9/2010)

Work to Complete in Fourth Quarter (10/2010-12/2010)


  • Working in multiple teams, investigate partnerships (institutions, societies, platform creators) and possible areas of focus (CV, research interest, other) for a first phase of work. Some partnerships and areas of focus may be best served by deferring work until the second phase, which begins 7/1/2010.
  • Develop narratives around these phase 1 areas of focus and partnerships.
  • Share these phase 1 notions in the form of brief proposals to Plan participants, due by 3/31/2010.
  • Confirm and ratify final work team charters and specifications for phase 1 by 6/30/2010.
  • Provide guidance to Build participants to make sure that their design is scholar-centric and supportive of the original narratives and notions from phase 1, reviewing releases as they are made available.
  • Building on the efforts in previous quarters, investigate further partnerships and areas of focus for a second phase of work.
  • Develop narratives around these phase 2 areas of focus and partnerships, sharing proposals with Plan by 9/30/2010.
  • Assess the scholar-centric qualities of additional phase 1 releases, sharing findings with Build participants.
  • Confirm and ratify final phase 2 work team charters and specifications by 12/15/2010.


  • Investigate current standards, practices, and capabilities in this area in preparation for making choices about what to comply to and what to implement.
  • Construct a rubric for evaluating Explore proposals.
  • Evaluate proposals and resources. By 4/30/2010, select Explore proposals to implement in phase 1. Some items may be deferred until phase 2.
  • Prepare Build charters and specifications for all chosen phase 1 areas of work by 5/31/2010.
  • Confirm and ratify final work team phase 1 charters and specifications by 6/30/2010.
  • Test phase 1 releases after they become available, especially focusing on apparent use of standards and interoperability, sharing findings with Build participants.
  • Test phase 1 releases, especially focusing on apparent use of standards and interoperability, sharing findings with Build participants.
  • Evaluate phase 2 proposals and resources. By 10/15/2010, select Explore proposals to implement.
  • Prepare phase 2 Build charters and specifications for all chosen areas of work by 11/15/2010.
  • Confirm and ratify final work team charters and specifications for phase 2 by 12/15/2010.


  • Take an inventory of available resources, including time available, levels of experience, and familiarities with languages and technologies. Prepare an assessment of these resources and supply to Plan by 3/31/2010.
  • Gather and prepare any necessary development tools and environments.
  • Respond to phase 1 Build charters and specifications with questions, comments, and amendments by 6/15/2010.
  • Confirm and ratify phase 1 final work team charters by 6/30/2010.
  • Develop and deploy gadgets and services in response to work team phase 1 charters.
  • Release 0.1 is due 7/21/2010.
  • Release 0.5 (suitable for assessment by Explore and Plan) is due 8/30/2010.
  • Release 0.9 (suitable for Bamboo community evaluation) is due 9/30/2010.
  • Release 1.0 is due 10/31/2010
  • Release 1.1, containing immediate fixes found during release, is due 11/15/2010
  • Release 1.5, containing a broader package of updates in response to feedback from the community, is due 12/15/2010
  • Respond to phase 2 Build charters and specifications with questions, comments, and amendments by 11/22/2010
  • Confirm and ratify final work team phase 2 charters and specifications by 12/15/2010.
  • No labels


  1. Unknown User (

    06/17/2009 Conversation (Workshop 5, Day 1)


    • Alex Humpreys from JSTOR/ITHAKA
    • Kaylea Chamption from UChicago
    • Linda Wilks from Librarian/Scholar Open University
    • Brett Bobley from the NEH / CIO and Digital Humanities direcor
    • (scribe: Matthew Aron from UChicago)


    • Scholarly network potentially how the community "records itself" and propogates our work.
    • Kind of tricky that we are in separate rooms talking about the pieces of (but a big enough group that it would be hard to have all the folks in same room).
    • Seems we would have to break down group / do analysis in some way to get.
    • Introductions.
    • How are gadgets / connection services going to be getting their information / data?
      • Not clear yet; more research required to identify needs, but it's hard to conceive at this point.
      • Figuring out source of content again must be part of scope of work.
      • Connection services doing behind the scenes "matchmaking" of data to needs.
      • Open University (distance learning institution) has built Facebook gadgets because they wanted people to be able to register and broadcast their course(s) of study.
      • An example of this in Bamboo might be area-of-work recipes / tools.
      • "Connection services" slightly more complex logically and customized than an generic RSS feed.
      • Bamboo could provide a clearinghouse / registry of reliable (and meaningful) sources ... channels ... dependent, of course, of good tagging / taxonomy (but a real authority for a taxonomy is still lacking).
      • Activity registries are appealing to funding organization like NEH.
    • Is Scholarly Networking about (A.) What problems have already been solved? Who's done what work already -- can folks use / collaborate? or about (B.) Connecting like-minded folks?
      • Project has been thinking the emphasis is about the goal-oriented connecting of folks with tools/projects.
      • Are we networking scholars on particular use-case basis or more broadly?
      • Scholarly Networking might also be used by academic societies (Steve at AAR, for example, wants to build a destination, which seems like it could provide source data in the Scholarly Networking clearinghouse).
    • Connecting research partners AND allowing folks to see what others have done.
    • For example, faculty CV format standard that's electonically parsable and fed into a clearinghouse database.
    • Concrete examples of the deliverables still seem to be needed. Necessity of specificity: demonstrations key at this point.
    • Will Bamboo choose or recommend particular platforms / tools it likes? Some of this is described in the BIP "plan activity."
    • While Service-oriented architecture is a sexy goal, giving folks something actual and tangible that solves a problem is necessary to get people interested, involved, and investing.
    • How wise is it (politically) to build onto something commercial and closed like Facebook? Thin layer gadget(s) seem to give us the advantage over relying on something like that -OR- building our own new social networking platform.
    • Deliverables for Year One
      • 2 gadgets & 2 services.
      • Are Interim deliverables in the BIP table clear?
        • We need to state these things more clearly than they are currently in the summary ... number or type of gadets is far less useful than specific what-problem-we're-solving ... start to vet, verify which issues we might want to attack.
        • The project spaces we have been talking about here include:
          • research interests, and
          • machine-readable CV data.
        • NEH is funding digital humanities tool registry at George Mason; Brett has more information about this. This "tools" would dovetail nicely with the other Major Areas of Work (Atlas, Services)
      • Possible way to query the Bamboo Atlas?
      • Measurement is really important. Humanities scholars need to get "credit" for their work in digital parts of fields. Metrics on people's work will be really important to encourage people to do work outside their fields' traditional publishing platforms.
      • John Wolffe wants to remind us of digital repositories (such as pre-print depositories) because folks don't know what's in them or even that they exist to the extent they do. A gadget could be developed to share this data more broadly. Deliverable that could exploit these when they are registered.
      • Can we do something more transformative than just a federated search of institutional repositories?
      • Success may lie in providing just enough value-added to get people using and re-using what they find with Bamboo.
      • Aggregator of data from multiple places -- would scratch at a BIG problem of unique identifier for academics vs. registry they are forced to maintain.
    • What would a CV system look like? What if your university has no CV system? Ning. Could VREs (virtual research environments) provide a model versus Faceboo? How would scholars find one another (scholars, research interests, tools)?
    • Who can add to the Atlas? (Governance) We need to let the Atlas know what's missing / stuff that scholarly networking needs included.
    • How does the data that goes into it get authorized if scholars aren't "sponsored" by someone trusted (universities, departments, societies)?
    • What quantity of data would be necessary to show value in Year One?
    • ITHAKA is talking about doing ethnography of scholarly networking.
    • is a closed system now.
    • Kaylea's proposal: Exploring ideas as major work area in Q1 and Q3.
    • Who has access to Bamboo's Atlas and tools?
      • If all, why join Bamboo?
      • If not all, are we too limited?
      • Academic peer pressure, like Sakai? Differences between scholarly and institutional pressures.
      • To keep things from being limited, bottom-up community addition of data is probably what we want.
  2. Unknown User (

    In 4.1.2 there there appears to be parallel work with that going on in the Atlas.  What is the relationship between the Atlas the Scholarly Netowrking group, how are they going to support and reinforce each other?

    Either in this section or int he project management section there needs to be a clearer discussion of dissemination of Bamboo information and results.  Who speaks for Bamboo?  

    1. Unknown User (

      The connection to / connections between the Atlas the Scholarly Networking pieces has been part of the discussion in this group. Pinning this down clearly needs to be in the final Implementation Proposal.

  3. Unknown User (

    Scholarly Networking Breakout / Day Two / June 18, 2009 / 9:50-10:35am


    • Alex Humphreys
    • Linda Wilks
    • Kaylea Champion
    • Rick Peterson
    • Dick Kuettner
    • Jaime Combariza


    • Q: What are we contributing / what's our pitch to the Bamboo Community?
    • Q: Are we talking about networking people or networking software?
    • Perhaps people aren't here because it's hard to imagine networks beyond the institutional level.
    • Something tangible is necessary; end-users need to have
    • Bamboo Community is now folded in to Governance, but they are also here in our meeting
    • Very important not to lose the human element (
    • Propose something that will make a real impact.
    • Can we re-summarize what scholarly networking is all about? Talks about software, but last version was too mushy... Kaylea wrote it with focus on software, but now we need to re-add the human element.
    • In what ways (and what contexts) are we going to be connecting people?
    • How to connect folks that aren't connected: can we give people something of value that they need (or show them value where they didn't expect it)? People / faculty / departments need examples when they talk with technologists; just asking them what they need gets you nowhere.
    • Summary needs to indicate that demonstrations and examples are vital to getting folks incorporated. Showing possibilities are key.
    • Somewhere on the continuum, access to the Atlas might provide a new and different way to connect folks. It's impossible to give everyone a one-on-one experience.
    • Amendments to the document:
      • human element
      • what specific areas we want to focus on (caveat: we haven't done all the research yet).
        • CV project (Wisconsin)
          • lots of trickiness because of how different institutions work this
          • COEUS tool developed at MIT
        • AAR network tool
    • In our drawings / models from yesterday, there's some question about what folks would get out of our model: Institution bears the burden while individual gets the benefit. How does the institution benefit? What do folks get out of Bamboo for putting things into it? Why do institutions do this?
    • Building the data model for CVs is not something our group is prepared to do right now.
    • The focus in UK is about finding partners and funding for projects. Perhaps Bamboo could set things up to drive this type of process. How do we identify the needs for a project of that sort? Perhaps we move from the Scholarly Facebook model to the Scholarly Craigslist model...
    • Emphasis on connecting the humans to humans through our project because we don't have the expert knowledge yet?
    • Connecting in existing tools is actually pretty easy and could still be there. But how do you know what needs to be there? Maybe we start small, approachable and worry less about the data modeling that needs to be done for a "perfect" system.
    • We can't replace the societies / solve all scholarly networking problems all at once. Deciding which database / project to build when.
    • What value do we add to the Atlas (with its tools and recipes)? How does Scholarly Networking fit in? Perhaps it's by focusing on humans. (Is the Atlas middleware or somewhere you go directly? This will have a big impact on the role of Scholarly Networking.)
    • Maybe Atlas is both a site one accesses and a series of gadgets. Is Scholarly Networking that site's front end? Seems we need to ask the community about this.
    • Recipes are great, but folks often want to talk with the person who wrote the recipe. More discussion is frequently important to scholars.
    • Worth reminding ourselves that the scope of our community (and who gets access to our work) is still up in the air. Kaylea was thinking the smallest group would be all members at all Bamboo institutions. Important not to be excluding folks: "Librarians need not apply." Ha!
    • How broadly do we want the lasso around tools within the Atlas?
    • Exchange is key for folks at smaller institutions where the local resources are limited; example of the Puget Sound demonstrator. This is tricky in terms of legality / funding (esp. faculty / staff), but PhD students could possibly do this.
    • Another thing we haven't talking about is a chatting facility. But where does Bamboo add value in this space exactly? Limiting the scope of global communication network. But technically it's not clear where we would go from here.
    • Hard for us to continue this conversation without knowing what exactly the Atlas group is up to. We can discuss values and examples when we come back.

    ... break ...

  4. Unknown User (

    Scholarly Networking Breakout / Day Two / June 18, 2009 / 10:50-11:30am

    • During the break, Alex talked a to Loretta and Kaylea talked to Steve about the Atlas. They didn't see CVs as the data they would be working with; it's the domain of Scholarly Networking. They feel there needs to be a front end to the Atlast, but it's unclear where it lives. Frontend may very well live in Scholarly Networking, but the ownership of this is unclear. Telling the Atlas what we need was good feedback for them. Linda talked to Atlas folks who thought Scholarly Networking would provide tools to the Atlas.
      • Where / what is the Bamboo font end?
      • How does stuff get into and out of the Atlas?
    • Alex sees our conversation in a very architectural breakdown. He drew boxes, Kaylea drew a tree.
    • Building some kind of front end seems like it needs to be a Year One deliverable for Bamboo in general.
    • PROPOSE: that front end concerns be addressed by Scholarly Networking -- bringing data out of the Atlas, feeding data into it, learning new things, meeting other faculty.
    • Seems like we need to focus on the problems we intend to solve for Humanists / Artsts -- this will then get us to the technical needs to have to express to the other groups.
    • Need something in our project that has to do with pedagogy!! And also art!
      • Scholar seeks/finds Process and Expertise to digitize bibliography and publish/maintain (expand upon demonstrator)
      • (Performance) Artist seeks/finds Technical Partner(s) to Collaborate on a bid/grant application in a particularor disciplinary scholarly area
      • Scholar seeks/finds Tool/Resource and Recommendation/Experience to integrate audio/video/screen capture to show students how to do image analysis
    • Want to focus on the people in the scenarios
    • Always looking for the BEST, which is what one would expect in the Bamboo Community.
  5. Unknown User (

    If Bamboo is serious about case statement 8 "Help Lead an International Effort to Advance Humanities Scholarship" , then Scholarly Networking will need to also embrace globally networked Real Time Communication (RTC) tools and services and the advanced networks that enable them.  This came up at workshop three and I was reminded again of this by the great international participation at the recent DH09 and Centernet gatherings.

    Suggestion for 4.1.1
    In collaboration with institutions, scholarly societies, and other development projects, the Scholarly Networking work will be in three areas: developing a set of small components, which we're calling "gadgets", that will plug in to and enhance existing research environments, social platforms, and collaborative forums;  a group of new services, which will filter information from several sources (including the Atlas) and supply relevant and interesting material to the gadgets; and a set of real time communication (RTC) tools and services to enable global  collaboration among scholars and those who support them.

    Suggestions for the end of 4.1.2
    ......The SNEEP application, which allows for commenting on the ORO, offers an interesting model here.  Scholarly networking connection services will also build on and integrate  RTC tools and services such as those of the Internet2 Commons, , webconferencing platforms, Virtual Organization collaboration tools, and interactive communication capabilities of emerging virtual research environments.

    This third focal area of networked Real Time Communication platforms, tools and best practices for Bamboo Scholarly Networking can then be amplified/elaborated on in 4.1.3 and 4.1.4.  RTC for BSN is also an area that can yield immediate BIP deliverables of significance to the Community.