This wiki space contains archival documentation of Project Bamboo, April 2008 - March 2013.
Is advocacy the best term? Standards and open source. It's been made a little pejorative already. Another term: archive instead of repository.
Tools - is that the only way to think about technology? What would those things be? Content side is missing - as are the ideas. What is the intellectual payoff? Scientists see this right away. Can one think one think of technology as something that has become naturalized in some areas of humanist scholarship? e.g. like fresh > dead (i.e. ubiquitous) metaphors.
Reusing and mining content - are the humanists nervous about mashing up their work? Do we need to protect and/or share our "intellectual property". We tend not to collaborate as humanists. Even working together with one other person (e.g. co-authoring) is very difficult / problematic.
In Germany, digital humanists are building an infrastructure, or grid into which tools can be plugged. Can we call it a Matrix? Is this the same as the 7th direction? Web services.
Does this still reflect IT staff language and not enough faculty language?
If humanities research is primarily individual, but Bamboo requires collaboration, then this changes our academic practices.
Manufacture > Service > Knowledge Economy. Knowledge brokerage.
Semantically, we're not yet able to do advocacy. The terms aren't fully fitting.
Which side is driving Bamboo? The advocacy needs to be amongst the faculty not the IT people. And without this, it will be the IT folks driving the process, not the faculty. Most humanists can't even imagine the questions they could ask.