Navigation:
Documentation
Archive



Page Tree:

Child pages
  • Exercise 1 Scribe Notes

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

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Workshop 1a - day 1

Where did the name bamboo come from?
    Organic process
    Services model---flexibility,
    Sustainability
    Web services model:  very rapid growth
    Organic, flexible, sustainable, can be multiple things---all aspects of bamboo.

Are we talking with/inviting MIT?
    Yes, we are. Also working with Harvard, Northwestern, smaller liberal arts institutions, talking with folks in Europe Oxford, Cambridge, etc.  What you can do:  write to colleagues at MIT

Lots  of academic orgs, few nonprofits, few grants, would love to see more industry.  Maybe companies haven't heard about it?  Interested in doing outreach?

    Have already reached out some, trying to decide how to involve industry.  Didn't want to have sales pitch as part of discussion, so trying to have right balance at right time.  Would welcome ideas about other ideas and partners.
Suggest Metaweb, open source software companies.

    Part of the commitment if this moves as it has been, will look at ways to include different communities at different times.  Figure out how to do that because we need to move forward.  How to engage folks and keep process going?  Workshop 1.5?  One company said would rather be here for workshop 2, because that's where they would be more comfortable.  Wedding cake-stuff at bottom, application at top, middle "magic happens".  Now really a triangle-applications, research you want to do; information at base; new leg-industry, mash-ups, new tools and technologies.  How do we engage that third piece?  What does it mean for industry to participate now?-

Industry needs to understand systemic problems being faced by educational space.  Google, Facebook, Amazon solving specific problems.  Ed space is different---trying to solve all those problems and structure and deliver it.  We need

Euro-Yankee bias, especially in humanities?
Need to engage beyond euro-Yankee? Yes.  Trying to step forward quickly, then reach out.  For example, if going to pacific rim, we need help with partnerships there.  Collective leadership council wants this to happen.

Please explain services model and how came with this?  Seems like there might be other solutions.
Thanks.  Will also talk about this more tomorrow.  Look at tech use in A&H now.  Many projects use innovative tech, but stand alone now.  How can make each project not have to re-do fundamental tools.  Services discoverable and reusable.  Services model, mash-up, a number of opportunities where identify and deliver services that people could use for research and teaching.

Looking at what's happening  around us in web2.0 world, what people are making available.  People are making use of that model right now

Third driver-services SOAs, used in things like Kuali student.  Our interest was to try to see how we could take services approach and support common set of needs across arts and humanities.
Know this is still quite a general answer---will tease out discrete and more granular services can deliver

 Sounds like establishing standards to which tools would be built, glue to hook together?  Where does bamboo come in?
Part of this is to see if our notions are correct.  Make it easier to connect apps and resources together.  A way to solve this problem.  Rattle off 10-20 standards or specs that we all use in our spaces.  Agree on using these services or these particular ways of using services.  Eg.; use Amazon way of describing services.

I want to know are there other projects depending on my service?  If I've created a service and others are building on top of that, I've contributed something to my field.  Sort of like writing an article that will be cited.  How do you build these meaningful connections?  Anglo-Saxon dictionary:  no way to use existing dictionary resources.  Could not use data in a website.  What happened---data put on DVD, sent to other institutions, modified there, resynced "someday".  Really, we should have things feeding back into the original resources, so don't have to debate which is the definitive set.

Shouldn't have to spend most of the time worrying about software development.  Now: 2/3 soft development, 1/3 research.  Should flip that around, allow people to really spend their time on what they're really interested in, not just reinventing the wheel.
George Washington university: Lots and lots of sides of this project---tech works best when solving a specific problem?  What are we trying to solve?  What are the consequences of not solving it?  Would help crystallize thought processes.

How can we help A&H advance and support research now, and research in the future, through much better foundation of shared tech services.  Different from what we're doing now.  Now at UCB:  do very little for ~330 faculty doing this sort of work.  Scattered, underserved, reduplication, equal investment across all disciplines, share knowledge across many areas.  Big ecosystem problems-higher ed as a whole.  Not just tools, but people working together.  Slice into medium-size smaller problems---shift from luck interest motivation to more sustainable model for this.  Deep concern that we don't want to continue trend of underinvestment

Piecemeal, ad hoc, fragmented, etc.  Big gap of knowledge between those who have resources and those who have none.  Coordinated way of resolving problems.

2 years since original Mellon conversation.  Was about bad digital humanities proposal and how often Mellon saw it.  Why we went out to find people who wanted to solve all problems together---on their own, have proved irreducible on their own.  Perhaps if we mash all together could start using them to solve each other.  Bringing these things together in a fairly messy space, doubt will be elegant in cs/math definition, should be able to get a lot farther

How do you define the scope?  Could proliferate to infinity
First thought:  Gee also problems facing sciences.  Why not expand to them too?  Bounded to A&H because have seen is unique/different than the sciences.  In case of big science: gigantic experiment hundreds of billions of $$, only certain kinds of experiment you can do with that instrument.  That's the instrument you have, can build infrastructure around it.  In humanities can't build infrastructure for 8 people in a certain sub-specialty.  Many dimensions to A&H, many sub-specialties.  How do we structure those conversations to get us to a point of working together?

Broad look at existing and future services, then see if there are fundamental needs that we hear over and over again.  Look for service where there might be a lot of bang for the buck, where the best investments are.  Come from this series of discussions.

See an enormous range of work, but here as an optimist, it is possible to identify common needs, but won't mean a reduction to lowest common denominator.  Yes is range, diversity, but in the end there are common practices

Respond to temporal dimension of the field:  rapid movement in time is thing that tech fields deal with all the time can be resolved.  Also a community moving in time, by time bamboo planning is done, current grad students will be asst and assoc professors, so maybe should include them in this process

May say "that's not where we're going with bamboo but maybe there's a group of you who want to take that idea and go talk about it."  Maybe an opportunity for an exploration related to this.

We get this question---"are you not going to fund anything digital humanities until bamboo is complete? " No, not the case, also fund things that won't fit in bamboo.  Projects should be aware of bamboo, if things don't fit within the scope, is fundable, but hope that will be accomplished with an idea of not reinventing something in bamboo.

Maybe have an unrelated conversation that spawns a project, but that project uses these sorts of architectural components.  That would be good

Hate for bamboo to be thinking about services serving boomers, digital natives/Millenials use information in very different ways, should design for them, hate to be obsolete when boomers retire.

Yes, we can learn a lot from younger folks' approaches to connecting data together.  Search for web2.0 on YouTube---mashed together in a couple of hours, very cool.  Asst professor at Kansas, thinks it's nothing.  His students all learning that too.  Some slice will be our faculty.  Connecting tech together about the output, not the method.

Interaction designer---in between technologists and practitioners.  Question is not what do we want, but what we think could be possible.  Plant the seeds instead of asking what we're trying to solve now.

Have tried to build that into day three.  Some of the most energetic and interesting discussions happened there in dry-runs.  Day two: reflective, day three: look forward.  "Don't know what's possible until I see what's possible."

Concern: One strength in A&H is sheer open-endedness of it, people cross boundaries all the time.  One of my fears (lib and it background)---in those fields solve problems of the past, workflows, concern that will try to solve enterprise problem, contrary to exploratory serendipitous nature of A&H.

Agreed, need to transform central IT organization, can't be solution for 20K people, boiled down to Lowest common Denominator

Look at the problem first, then think about the technologies.  Rather build tools to build tools that you need.  Build something that's sustainable but also flexible, can grow and extend.

May be skeptic: traditional trained humanist, wrote article about a year ago about humanists and technology-they're doing stuff but still facing a lot of tech challenges.  Elephant in room:  use of tech is anathema to culture-not collaborative, not good for getting tenure if you spend time on technology.  Have you thought about it?

Yes.  Heard from range of people can be counter to tenure, other places where changing or may change.  If is a concern should be brought up and recorded, but not planted as a topic for conversation.  Sometimes comes up, sometimes doesn't.  Seems somewhat less than a couple of years ago.  Princeton-16-20 faculty, all beyond tenure decsions, also didn't come up.  Would like to get sense of this problem, where this exists, how impact promotion and tenure.

Bamboo lends legitimacy to this sort of research.  On task force for digital humanities at UW, one rec college councils, chairs, deans, need to pay attention to this sort of digital work.

WAS the person who posted to the humanities list.  There are guidelines, but gets ignored.  Associate professor, approaching 4-year review, being asked "what are you doing?  What have you produced?"

Provides legitimacy, provides hooks so digital humanists can be cited for the work they are doing, but probably won't change tenure practices in America and worldwide.  Would be horrified if even a single scholar immolated their careers on the altar of shared technology services.  Enlightened self-interest, risks, advantages, you should all think about this.

How were faculty selected? Were they self-selected?  Did you select?

You all have reached out to the faculty members at your institution, school.  Just invited the institutions to participate.  One of the reasons we asked teams to come, not just individuals to sign up.  Share the perspective of different institutions.  In future conversations-the scholarly recognition of digital projects and they move forward and evolve is absolutely critical.  Many examples-new publishing models, no single project will define, but would be wonderful if bamboo was part of that conversation.
Single culture may be an oversimplification of the humanities

Whole range of different cultures, yes.  Comment  about maintaining diversity.  Tried really hard to be diverse with invitations.

Would like to hear more about tenure stuff, see if it comes up consistently.

-Recommend:  Heterogeneity of outputs-economic model of publishing.  Synergistic effect-digital also helps with traditional publishing.
-Cyberinfrastructure as recruitment and retention tool for newer professors.  Culture shift.

Back to top.

Workshop 1a - day 2

Project has a fairly concrete goal to develop Common infrastructures, common tools, with the diversity of the humanities, is that possible?

Have a confidence that tools could be developed that could help some people more than
others. What effect would that have on scholarly practice if some are more than others?
Know tech changes what we do, how we think, at what point are there checks and balances.

How avoid "bamboo invitation to normative scholarship"? Prevent the "right" sort of
scholarship?

Interdisciplinary scholarship---important for people to be able to discover each other.
How can we create tools to help people to do this? Social networking, etc. 2) Also, existing efforts for using tech in arts in humanities. How avoid reinventing the wheel? 3) from our IT view, how host less, how use resources out in the cloud, not have yet another thing to host on our campuses.

How will bamboo take on doing a scan of what's already been done, what's succeeded or
failed? Why? How will bamboo take into account?

Semantic web, web of data---looking at things we're talking about. Are we going to follow that they're doing, have a seat at the table?

What's the return on a faculty member's investment of time in this process?

This isn't just a tool for storage or communication? How can be used ACTIVELY in
a mode of research? Hardware and spaces as part of this, not just software?

Will I know I'm using bamboo (will it take over everything), or will it just be "down there in the basement"? We don't know at this point, but will try to define as part of this conversation. Tackle most difficult things first, what's important: tech, social, scholarship
changing, ways we want to be working. Could be highest value is helping people to knit
tools together

Bamboo as home depot, huge numbers of tools, how know best for job? Personal advice on how to evaluate the best tool for the job. Would be helpful to be guided how to choose, think the tools are out there, but don't know how to find them.

How it fits into larger structural shifts in scholarly communication, open access, engaging multiple publics. Diane Harley here, CDL here, need to understand this transformation

Wondering how we might take these conversations back to our campuses and continue our conversation. Would hate to eat, shoot, and leave. Will talk about that tomorrow, how to move forward, how to engage other.

For those of us who have already been in the fight, how to improve the two way
street. Take advantage of Bamboo technologies, maybe even contribute back. This is
EXCEPTIONALLY critical, what sustainability after the planning process. [David discusses

Concerned about Humanities vs Sciences. More continuity than that. For example,
Ecology more like humanities---lots of people in the field, more idiosyncratic. Not trying to segregate A&H, trying to support, but don't want to make scope too wide

Important to have separate discussions of sciences vs A&H---NSF fund 5 orgs $20M each to deal with long term data preservation, conservation, etc. Datanet. Bamboo would want to be in conversation with this effort. Good bridge to build. Macke: NIH and NSF know about this, are excited. Mellon funds in A&H, so that's why the scope was constrained. Hope this is infrastructure that will be available to all, scholarly integration across all of the disciplines.

One question over past several years---question of Data. Sciences have data sets. Some
disciplines in A&H have data, some don't. Scholars taking lots of time making digital data sets so that they can then do something with it. Chad: hope bamboo becomes way to help
scholars making data sets and share those with the world. Exposed in a meaningful way for other applications that may be outside original researcher's intent. Bamboo is an effort to make this easier down the road. Still have effort creating data sets, but easier to share, look at in different ways, use information in different ways. David: Data piece is as fundamental as tools piece.

Using term "database"---may have preconceived notion of this. In humanities "Archive",
can mean many different things. Should add "archive" to the discussion/vocabulary.

Defining digital formats and standards. Linguistics. Holy grail is building tools.
Had to start by defining data so when got to building tools, would have data in a format open, interoperable, long-lasting.

Had to define data collection standards in our discipline. Long task to define tools ahead, should also think about resources so last a long time, share them, plan for as go into later stages.

Cog systems engineer---changes new systems change domain. Every tool changes
discipline. Shouldn't focus so much on developing tools, capture patterns of scholarly
activities. Developing tools becomes research practice, develop understanding of domains.

not just an American situation, aware of Asian databases, Taiwan petabyte database, lots of activity there. Don't let language be a barrier. David: Thinking about how can have deeper engagement with the pacific rim. Would appreciate your help with this.

Back to top

Group 1b - A

    - [ ] Day 1
        - [ ] What do you hope Bamboo will accomplish?
        - [ ] What questions do you have about bamboo?
        - [ ] Goals
            - [ ] align campus infrastructure initiative with broader trends
            - [ ] would like some easy to use tools, drawn to idea of modules or web services that can be joined together
            - [ ] persistence of data -- commercial services are attractive to faculty, but what if they go away? if something is open and standards based, where the data can be extracted
                - [ ] academicalizing the commercial services that are out there
                - [ ] academic analogs are sometimes immature as compared to the commercial ones
                - [ ] facebook allows lots of applications to be built upon it
                - [ ] google print project -- how can the academic potential be reserved and not  be consumed by commercial activities
            - [ ] bamboo could bring more awareness to arts & humanities scholars about what's possible, and developers can hear what's needed by the academics
                - [ ] tech has developed to the point that it can be "invisible" behind accomplishing the goal, involved in the methodology of producing work
                - [ ] need to keep the thumbprint of the individual
                - [ ] need to understand the needs
                - [ ] inquiry-based learning, bringing research into undergraduate world
            - [ ] inclusivity -- we need to do this in ways that don't require people to be techies
            - [ ] replicable models? new ones, that are easy to use? sustainable, too!
        - [ ] Questions
            - [ ] what is it contributing that's unique and not reinventing the wheel
            - [ ] what's the role of funders in supporting these activities? they need to value the tool-building and digital activities
                - [ ] hard sciences value development of instruments and technology
                - [ ] not very "responsible" to get people engaged in these activities, and then not reward them
                - [ ] how do we motivate participation?
            - [ ] how does it relate to other kinds of digital humanities initiatives, and what's unique
                - [ ] awareness of what's going on -- lots of reading but what are people actually doing today
            - [ ] there's a grant until we complete the planning process -- what happens then? how will the implementation be paid for? what's the scale of the grant?
            - [ ] what needs can we meet -- based on the proposal, what are the existing services, and what are the new possibilities?
            - [ ] how does it tie with promotion & tenure
                - [ ] P&T is an expression of values, or a valuing system -- do we wait for the big actors? can the project advocate for this?
                - [ ] how can rigor be evaluated in a digital environment
            - [ ] how much is transformational, and how much is evolving one's methodology?
            - [ ] what are the implications of these new models versus traditional ones?
            - [ ] educating future scholars? how would it be introduced to graduate students?
        - [ ] in humanities, leadership means developing tools & collections

Back to top

Group 1b - B

are we building a bus or a house or a car or a kangaroo?
A1 is pleasantly uncomfortable
A2: kind of like being pregnant, you don't know if you're going to get a boy or a girl, but you're not getting a dog
an opportunity to interface with others in similar roles with similar challenges
any product, as long as it includes mechanisms for sharing ideas & solutions, will be great
* sharing ideas and solutions

A3 thinks we're doing the right thing in the beginning: consensus-building around tasks
opportunity to create consensus or no consensus at all
in terms of deliverable, beyond data collection: service frameworks
not so much specific architectures or products or sites, but rather agreeing upon service frameworks that will allow for data aggregation
search federation
* building consensus and service frameworks to enable collaboration

A4: finding out what exigencies we share
what are the problems we want to solve
some practical (how can we aggregate data and make it searchable)
some more socially/community-defined issues (what kind of knowledge we want to make accessible, and to whom)
big, inclusive in-house academic projects
* figuring out what problems and needs we have in common

A5: notices that proposal was written in [plain] English
A5 sees huge gulf between librarians/faculty and technologists
so here is an opportunity to communicate with each other
do communication tools already exist in the social and hard sciences?
what kind of shared and borrowed tools can we bring into the humanities?
A5's school is building an institutional repository; how can they make it work most effectively?
* promoting communication among academics and technologists

A6 isn't sure what to expect
he knows what the needs are at his university:
IT structure based on bringing in the big grants, meeting the needs of money people
A6 thinks IT doesn't know what to do with less grant-heavy areas
some kind of infrastructure that lets them meet the needs of the less rich areas
* something that benefits areas that don't pull down the big bucks

A1 interjects: my university is really small, so being in the same room as the heavy hitters, he'd like to see a raising-up of opportunity for other people
A5: they're held hostage by commercial publishers, & we have the power to do something about that
A2: my university is one of eight schools in the state system; she agrees that the sciences have the big money and the big IT support, but their head guy recognizes that my university has to compete with e.g. another state university, so their goal is to participate in Bamboo and to hope that something comes of it that facilitates their humanities faculty.  E.g., they'd love to publish digitally, but that doesn't tend to count in tenure review.
A2 has to take care of her faculty; there's only three people above her in her university's structure, but below her are 270 faculty
* loosen the grip of commercial publishers on academic work, and in general tackle issues of access and control over resources, data, tools, technology

A7: releasing people from the tyranny of publishers
e.g., MLA recognizes textbook publication as valuable scholarship, and that took a long time
freeing scholarly teaching materials for something like a digital repository
FOR WHICH you need some kind of standards and means of evaluation

A2 wants her faculty to be free to do what they're passionate about

A7: Bamboo: to introduce a set of standards and practices, a peer-review equivalent

A3: that's related to what fuels scholarly practices
A3 mentions some project like Bamboo for nanotech: it recognizes nontraditional contributions to scholarship
there is some system that keeps track of secondary contributions and lets you track the impact of your contributions
e.g. software, pedagogy, peer-reviewed journal article, etc.

A1: higher education needs to embrace the technological revolution affecting teaching and learning
accessing information, who controls that information, who you have to be to get it
A1 thinks the access issue in higher education is huge: haves & have-nots
as technology is revolutionizing the record industry, so it affects higher education
information is power/money, and it affects who has the power/money

A2 has been working with her faculty on a new textbook series, teaching humanities through music
A2: gets some FLV thing, needs to convert to AVI

A5: would like some tool to help people integrate cultural studies with lit classes: music, religion, etc.

one of A2's faculty wants to do comparisons between very old publications, tracking articles or poems as they're published in different papers from the 1800s or whenever

A5: like wikipedia: no one entity can do it

A3: the public good, creation of public assets, equity, resources

A4: defining a community as a community of practice makes sense
doing scholarly work, knowledge production, not just providing a service, being a talking head

A2: we will need the industry to participate
going between nonprofit and for-profit areas: that is scary

----- "What questions do you have regarding Bamboo?"

A3: For humanist scholars, is there a need for a community project like this to build community?  Rather than to pursue some other goal (like technology)?

A4: are there universities that have hooked up with social entrepreneurs?  (making nonprofit things profitable)
can you take a nonprofit edu org and say, how can we scale this beyond the original community and not lose the ethos/mission but make them profitable, to make them enormous and help them do good in enormous ways
i.e., an economic model that can sustain itself in the future

A4: is there a set of core principles that could lend themselves to a big range of practices?
A3 notices that the central Bamboo document only includes the word "principles" twice, in footnotes
A4 wasn't sure she could see actionable motives in the Bamboo document
A5 thought the purpose was to create tools
A1: mechanisms
A2: understanding
A2: implicit in the document was that it's aimed for the common good
* what core principles will the Bamboo project be working under?

A1: how to deliver results to scholars?
A2: how access to end-products will be developed and made available, to whom, is there some value tied to it
A2: often universities have staff but not money
A2: e.g. Habitat for Humanity: sweat equity
maybe small institutions who can't afford $ could contribute sweat equity
A1: how fast will the results trickle down?
A2: if we're not all using the results, then we fail
* how to deliver the results of the Bamboo project to scholars and others who will benefit from them?

A3: question: can there be a uniform method/standard across the humanities?
variability -> uniformity?

A1: what effect does standardization and uniformization have on scholarly practices?

* how will the Bamboo project affect the way the humanities conceives of itself?

A4: can we revise teaching/service/research divides?  will that distinction survive?

* how can we bring diverse practices together and specify core functions, concepts, and tools?

A3: how can we specify the core functions/concepts/tools used by all humanities scholars, and what is not held in common?

A6: everything is so unique, how can we tie this all together?

A4: database thinking: how can you fit all these different pieces into a central store, so that others can reorganize the same information in ways that help them

data flows in so fast, how do you organize it?

* A5: blind spot: in Bamboo, who is going to do what, and what's it going to cost them to do it?

* A4: how to make it invitational, so that it's not just one more in-deep academic project that makes a clear divide between the creators and the people who use it?
A3: needs to be a value proposition to the end-user community, so that they get something from collaborating

A1: how do we bring people along who don't want the same thing as the majority of participants?

A4: different ways to disagree, either on principles or on nitty-gritty

A2: how will the Bamboo project relate with open-source?

Back to top

Group 1b - C

•    With much digital humanities experience, failures due to lack of ongoing support, so NS would like Bamboo to not start from scratch, to proceed with attention to "building on the shoulders of giants who have invested their lives" in digital humanities projects that have come before, and have in large respects been successful.  In short, building on the experience of several decades of the digital humanities.
•    (B1, Art Historian):  constant wheel-reinvention ... coordinating work, finding structures in which we can come together and share similar kinds of digital resources ... Bamboo's work should feed back to projects like ArtSTOR vis-à-vis meeting needs of scholarship, accommodating institutional collections ... what commonalities and standards can allow sharing ... how can I get and use digital images of sufficient quality that they're better than analog (though they can be of sufficient quality in theory, and might actually exist, access to the best digital images isn't possible for me right now)?
•    Don't lose the unique part in the hunt for commonalities:  B1 is an art historian and a China specialist ... when the "common tool" doesn't fit the specialized needs of a scholar "diminishes what a specialized scholar can do" -- it's an impediment not a boon.
•    Multiple projects funded by Mellon -- identify them ... discoverable ... right now even at a single institution a Mellon project participant might not be aware of other Mellon-funded work at her university
•    How do you maintain the systems that you've built?  What infrastructure can support diverse scholarship?  E.g., data storage of digital content.
•    A small institution can't support brilliant scholarship with homegrown infrastructure ... what consortial work can support (diverse / unique) scholarship
•    B2: "Scholarship is about reputational gain"
•    How can Bamboo influence the culture of scholarship to accept digital humanities work as applicable toward tenure?  That is, how can Bamboo "raise this issue" to actionable attention within universities?  Also, there's the disciplinary field and its conservativism ... change has to take place at both levels in order to effect acceptance of digital scholarship as tenure-worthy.
•    Visual literacy is not sufficiently developed, sometimes, for evaluation committees to feel they can assess on-line scholarly objects ("I don't know what I'm looking at").
•    The gap in intellectual orientation between generations of scholars is not designed to vet scholarship that is changing more quickly than scholarship has changed in the past.
•    Haves and has-not divide between large and small institutions
•    "You can now find things that you never could have found before ... it has revolutionized scholarship"  Scholars who have skills to mine that data are coming up with ideas that seem "crazy" to those who lack skills to find and mine resources that were not available a few decades ago.
•    What if the work that's been done doesn't run on supported hardware/software any more?
•    B3:
o    raise awareness among teaching faculty about digital resources and tools that are available ... not necessarily used to thinking about what options might be available.
o    Teaching faculty need to know how to breach the wall between teaching and technology staffs at institutions
o    Access to digital collections that address areas of teaching and research of particular interest ... can Bamboo make these collections more discoverable.
•    Bamboo should address teaching as well as research
•    Software changes ... one has invested in the "old" software ... learning something new becomes a burden and a barrier.  So much time to invest in learning new software is a very serious disincentive to use.
•    Need for the primary material is enormous:  demand increasing faster than the digitized collections can supply.  Students want/expect to be able to find 1920s Irish newspapers, and 1950s Chinese census data, etc., etc., instantly available on-line.
•    Search across multiple digital collections.  Finding aids are inconsistent.  "There are finding-aids and finding-aids."
•    Better fuzzy logic in searching
•    B2:  Yochai Benkler, commons-based peer production.  Peer review, motivation by reputation rather than gain.  E.g., wikipedia and linux.  Bamboo should draw on theories of community like this:  has Bamboo engaged in that kind of theoretical frame?
•    B4:  How will the Bamboo Project "peer review" what it selects ... including review by persons and institutions that are not formally participants in Bamboo?
•    How will Bamboo integrate other projects, how will "the laundry list of what's been accomplished already" be compiled?
•    What will Bamboo build?
•    Framework in which many tools, archives, etc. can "play"
•    B1:  I hope Bamboo will enable "more access to more stuff"
•    Copyright problems:  I want to put a PDF of a copyrighted item in my LMS, but there's a long bureaucratic process involved in doing it "by the book" ... so is there a way Bamboo can make it easier to deal with IP issues vis-à-vis distributing copyrighted material to a group of students?
•    Can we contribute open-knowledge content across institutions that we can then use in lieu of purchasing a CD of stuff that my institution must have, but has not assembled for re-use.

Back to top

Group 1b - D

C1: hope to find better ways to integrate media, embed images, be truly multimedia
C2: in my field drowned in data, need database models, information integration, need to develop an ontology of digital support for humanities.
C3: hope bamboo moves beyond the usual conversation between humanities scholars and digital technology, i.e. 'What do you want?', 'What can you do?'
Also troubled by formula of service, that digital technology folk and librarians are there just to "service" the humanities faculty.
C1: should be a partnership of equals, both have research goals they want to pursue
C4: want to see Bamboo solve TEI issues and standardization issues.
C5: Bamboo should develop more domain specific or media specific tools.
C6: Mellon funded projects don't think about teaching, or reach out to community colleges.
How interested are they in being egalitarian?
C3: basic humanities functions are:
Find
Annotate (overlay tools/ personalize data tools)
Re-use
Want digital tools for each stage and tools that allow both individual and community use/ sharing.
Want Bamboo to create cross-systems tools that are function based, but can also be personalized. Lack common tools and architecture that allow scholars to share. Need inter-operability
C6: Bamboo should make life for digital humanities scholar EASIER. Like other leaps in technology make life easier for business/ consumers.
C1:
How do we get to an industry standard of quality? What is authority?
C2: ontology or master plan needed
C5: want to see program reflect in importance for given data, so certain info given more weight, certain author given more weight, etc. need to have databases conceptually linked.
C4: want Bamboo certification on data or sites. Want industry wide standard for content.

Related tools: zotero www.zotero.org
green stone www.greenstone.org/

Back to top

Group 1b - E

One university team: Division of Information Technology and then larger schools have their own IT. My university's.digital collections center gets a lot of humanities projects.

D1: From the library perspective: Tap all the stake holders in information, Presses, Proquest, Bibliograhic DBs (MLA), as a collective.
 - Think Differently. Find new ways but more efficiently. Bamboo has to understand the subtlety in that.
 - Our audience is everybody?
 - I want Bamboo to open up all the doors and I don't want to bump into their software. Not another barrier. Not another standard. I don't Bamboo to be so inclusive that it dumbs it down for everyone.
D2: Pub/Accidental conversation to happen even when people are not in the same room
 - You may not be publishing your research as a book, one day. I want people to look forward - esp. Grad students who are often the hardest to convince.
D3: Find a way to utilize skills of IT with Humanities. Outreach to the Faculty.
 - Take the Grunt Work out.
 - Small sciences are pushing a lot of innovation that we can use - Archeologists, Anthropologists,
 - Larger Library budgets are going to science journals - taking out humanities purchases. SPARK and Open Access. Bamboo can help disseminate, archive, publish scholarly production.
 - Who is going to maintain Bamboo?
D4: Interconnections and inter-serviceability between IT and Hum
D5: How do we learn what the faculty need? Science has support, A&H doesn't. Bamboo can stimulate that conversation on-campus.
 - Get Graduate students involved.
 - Get more interdisciplanarity - sciences, arts, humanities.
D6: Curious: Dreams to transform society. ITunes for my articles. Indexing, referring, recommending for scholarly articles.
 - Do certain things get faster, and other things are left out.
 - Grad Students are not necessarily more technical.
 - Who does Bamboo think their audience is?
D7: Bamboo pay attention to the folk-life, archives outside of academy, multi-valued systems
 - Other formats could be legitimate forms of accreditions. Economic world of Uni Presses is altering, how does that impact the humanities departments?
D8: Only rep from Press. Bamboo engage that publishing convo. Libraries, Publishing and Faculty are not talking. IT in the background. Efficiency and Effectiveness are not entirely a humanities priority. Tenure's connection with publishing. How will tenure be decided in the face of new technology.
 - Humanities and IT people have different definitions of Effectiveness v Efficiency? Humanities has "productive inefficiency".
 - Move IT away from 'your desktop is failing' to 'let's teach your students to know standards'
 - Hard Sciences are absent - how do we learn from their technological advancements?
 - How will Bamboo take its material to the stakeholders?

Back to top

Group 1b - F

E14: taking the process back to my organization as a way of engaging with my faculty, central IT see themselves as service/utility. Can they survive w/o having scholarly practices? Using the Bamboo process as a model for my own institution to solve this problem.

E15: Sometimes I feel I have solutions in search of a problem. Find ways to share them with faculty, looking for an intellectual context on which to hang my technology solutions.

E11: Making the latent community of IT and Humanities people active > higher mutual understanding of what we both do.

E16: NEH very interested in collaborative work. Bamboo shows potential to provoke that. Hoping that some middleware will come out of this to constantly re-invent the wheel.

E11: Most compelling passages in the proposal was the part where someone at a teaching institution could make use of the same resource available to the Tier 1 Research institution.

E16: Persistence of digital resources would be a great win.

E17: Also credibility (of the tool).

E14: Value for the tenure process of the interdisciplinary, collaborative process. Recognition of this.

E11: Some tension between the two.

E8: bayesian common to both.

E18: Credibilty is more than using technology, network of evidence. Network of computational ways of thinking, information concepts. IT not technology. We can create new primary resources & data for both groups. This project legitimizes Information Science.

E17: Tools (e.g. Virage) that are too expensive to purchase. How can we work with corporations.

E11: Can Bamboo develop shared services that are capable of being shared beyond well endowed research institutions?

E18: Get M$ and Google interested. These companies will recognize it, make it industrial strength, and then fund and package it. Bamboo can also legitimize this pipeline. Bamboo should aim to build a data centric resource to be funded at a NSF level.

E18: CSPAN close captioned. Can zoom in on a particular frame > "Hillary Clinton speaking on AIDS". Computer Scientists don't know about these databases. Very interesting test beds. Koreans insist on using search engines by asking questions.

E14: Might we be able to study the new scholarly practices that might come out of shared web services? *****************

E11: Humanists needs to understand IT practices.

E17: There's a non-technological deliverable. How do we get the message out? There's no incentive for people to look for it (until they know what the value is). *******************

E17: Can Bamboo help legitimize the Humanities? By revealing and making transparent some of the practices. And share in this.

E18: Most people tend to be far more interested in Humanist scholarship - and help explain it to them (by sharing their methodologies). ****************

E19: Between Humanities and a larger public. Very worthwhile.

--------------------

E11: What does institutional commitment mean?

Back to top

Group 1b - G

1. What do you hope Bamboo will accomplish?
* Clear examples for people in humanities to find out what's possible
* Reduce the number of one-off projects
* Changing relationships between academic, IT, lib to enable more productive collaboration
* Opportunity to work collaboratively with others on my own campus
* Bury the ideas of 'digital' and 'computational' in the dustbins of history. We don't talk about 'electrical kitchens;' why do we talk about digital humanities?
* Also the idea of 'tools'
* Not so fast on getting rid of the 'tools:' Want to find more friendly consumer model of tech: don't want to know how to do it, just want to be told what tool to use
* Establishing a community to continue these types of conversations
* Facilitate collaboration
* Reduce amount of money spent on scholarly support, and redirect that to scholarship itself
* More transparent support for the scholarly process; e.g., embed data and methods inside papers to support replication and model the scholarly process as part of the work product
* Increase campus awareness of new humanities
* Increase competitiveness of humanities w/natural sciences in campus allocation decisions
* Help the humanities make substantive progress against their own disciplinary agendas/allow the humanities to flourish
* Advance the conversation about how disciplines should engage with the rest of the academy and with the world outside the academy
* Help the humanities to make people sweat: why do people expect the sciences to be hard but
* What is it that humanities faculty want to be able to do, or do better?

Back to top

Group 1c - A

•    Introduction differentiating between tasks and practices.  Defining specific goal-oriented activities, so that IT personnel can hook into the things that scholars do.
o    This is getting ahead, but should be kept in mind in order to regulate discussion.
o    Previous discussions have focused on the fact that it is challenging for scholars to articulate scholarly practices.
•    Participants
o    F1
•    Cyberinfrastructure for literary editions - parallel project to Bamboo.  Objective to build infrastructure that's sustainable
•    Focus should be on switching projects from individuals to institutions, which gives people impetus to invest time.
o    F2
•    Funding for infrastructures that bear resemblances to Bamboo in that they systematically approach the same problems, while focusing less on tools and more on relationships in order to define roles.  There seems to be a more systematic engagement in this way.
o    F3
•    Humanities research at large research university - Responsibilities to be innovative, interdisciplinary and collaborative.  Difficulty of forcing dialogue for collaboration.
•    Focus on resource enhancement and the value of IT to humanities.  There exists then things to learn from anthropology as a result in terms of exchanges of knowledge.  How to bring projects together with high levels of specificity - lack of money and lack of entities in light of devolution of universities.
•    Common experience - Costs to collaboration: Invest in the ability to lead, while people to be led perceive opportunity-cost. 
•    Stanford model - Applying for funding is part of culture
o    F4
•    Timelines between humanities and IT - Hum 400-year timeline, IT- 9 months.
•    Focus of workshop should maintain and abstract level, separate from current technologies.
•    There is resistance in humanities to new technologies, "There's yet another solution."
•    Bamboo should focus on guide of conduct, accepted that we should go digital and how we should.
•    Separation of communication or archival needs with current solutions.
o    Should we have teenagers here?  Students: No idea, ask stupid questions, and are right. - F13
o    F5
•    Director of media center
•    Most work is virtual, so a different perspective.
o    What is the virtue of virtual distance research?
o    There is an insistence on blue-sky technology, so his unit has little interest in specifying complete solutions.  Instead, a focus on applied technology that must work.
o    Getting communities to speak to each other in effective ways - outside of academia, and internationally.
o    E-humanities is not instantiated as a discipline, as opposed to e-science. 
•    Focus on keeping projects alive beyond life cycle of funding.
o    Content is best presented in best-practice networks.
o    Researchers don't talk to each other in sustainable ways, give them money and they'll talk to each other. 
•    "Purchasing the energy that requires researchers to talk to one another"
•    The investment in something such as Bamboo ought to be in the communication amongst those who share common interests.
o    Something special about the humanities? 
•    Abstract generic technologies - project is just a place to do something.  What is the sustainable framework?
o    How do we write manuals for anything?  - F4
•    Allow users to write manuals, because they're the only ones who truly understand what they do.
•    Finding out what you've developed after users get their hands on the system. - F5
•    This is the only sustainable way to develop training in quickly-moving communities.
•    The dependence remains on human communities - tools can't be used unless there is communication.
•    Researchers want to talk, but producing the means and drive are lacking.
•    Human factors, rather than technologies, are always the interesting thing.
•    There should be an emphasis on capturing what you do, so even if you re-invent the wheel, you'll know what you did. - F4
•    Key for Bamboo - Aspires to be a "thing" in which people can expose what it is that's happening among IT and media development organizations. - Facilitating
o    Great social belief in education that could use technologies.
•    Idea to transform education.
o    Users change as well as technologies.
•    Work goes in cycles - users get used to doing certain things
•    Or brainwashed.
•    Use of Blackboard as an example, the use of this in the classroom becomes expected.
•    First cycle captures small sub-group that "get it".
•    There is a need for preachers.
•    F6
o    Director of Academic Technologies - Support of faculty use of technology
•    Small liberal arts school, building infrastructure as faculty come in - building happens with faculty
•    Faculty member in school of education in adult learning
•    Learning environments and learning spaces. 
•    Bamboo as learning space - where researchers can share.
o    How to find out about resources?
•    We can't concentrate on defining standards. - F1
o    Develop sustainability that allows data storage for long-term
•    Actual building is important.
o    Research communities are not usually within a technical framework
•    Must be open and accessible to other frameworks - while certain materials (i.e. music, film) must be in closed environments. 
•    Two things to bring to the group - Facilitating
o    Sustainability/permanence
o    Community-building and scalability
•    Open-ness, in terms of copyright and related issues. 
•    What level of abstraction to have sustainability?

Back to top

Group 1c - B

▼    1.    Exercise 1
    •    1.1.    Overview of exercises
    ▼    1.2.    Introductions
    ▼    1.2.1.    G1
    •    1.2.1.1.    background in statistics & policy, now VP & CIO.
    •    1.2.1.2.    Here looking for understanding of cross-disciplinary requirements(question)
    ▼    1.2.2.    F12
    •    1.2.2.1.    Provides technology assistance to researchers.
    •    1.2.2.2.    Also works in e-research center.
    •    1.2.2.3.    Head of Text Archive, works on project  for linguistic research.
    •    1.2.2.4.    Background in corpus linguistics, did research and teaching, degree in French.
    ▼    1.2.3.    G2.
    •    1.2.3.1.    Interested in intellectual property law.
    •    1.2.3.2.    Tries to get people thinking more broadly about information, not just as IP.
    •    1.2.3.3.    Jurisdiction, privacy, regulation.
    •    1.2.3.4.    Assoc. dean for e-learning.
    •    1.2.3.5.    Proponent of open access.
    •    1.2.3.6.    Not a technologist, sees need for others to provide tools and assistance to researchers on the ground.
    ▼    1.2.4.    G3. Center for humanities research.
    •    1.2.4.1.    Martial arts from a social anthropology POV.
    •    1.2.4.2.    Consultant to Arts Council: trying to bring about change in arts organizations.
    •    1.2.4.3.    Evidence of value in arts & hum.
    •    1.2.4.4.    Concerns: there's at times a blind faith in digital / technology to provide a solution. "Fix it." "Save us time." It's really about resource allocation. People haven't time to learn how things work.
    •    1.2.4.5.    "Community": what does it mean?
    •    1.2.4.6.    We live in an outcome-focused world; process is valuable.
    ▼    1.2.5.    G4.
    •    1.2.5.1.    Cultural anthropologist, studies groups in the US. Representational practices. Oral histories for artists, will launch a thing on web through US university. Interested in how to do presentation of such research.
    •    1.2.5.2.    Define "open access." Learning how to create and manage digital information & representations of art.
    •    1.2.5.3.    Concerns about reliability & sustainability.
    •    1.2.5.4.    As editor of journal, trying to redefine editorial and peer review process. Call it a feminist editorial practice, but you could call it open access. In this review process, people can collaborate, become mentors in editorial function. Double-blind review process(question) .
    ▼    1.2.6.    G5. Program Director for a funding agency.
    •    1.2.6.1.    Funds university infrastructure.
    •    1.2.6.2.    Currently funding virtual research environments, about developing tools & toolkits for coll. research.
    •    1.2.6.3.    Main reason for attendance: to ensure that what's developed is aligned with their funding efforts.
    •    1.2.6.4.    Std. model involves getting people to understand capabilities, so that people can share benefits.
    •    1.2.6.5.    Background in math, phil, and some other things I couldn't catch.
    ▼    1.2.7.    G6. Research Fellow.
    •    1.2.7.1.    Ethnomusicologist
    ▼    1.2.7.2.    Three connections to conference.
    •    1.2.7.2.1.    University has longstanding commitment to online education.
    •    1.2.7.2.2.    As ethnomusicologist, work has tight bond with the development of phonograph, and current work involves recordings and transcriptions of recordings. Involve A/V fundamentally.
    •    1.2.7.2.3.    Tries to understand social intricacies involves in making music together.
    ▼    1.2.8.    G7. Library/information resources.
    ▼    1.2.8.1.    Three elements relevant.
    •    1.2.8.1.1.    Cyberinfrastructure
    •    1.2.8.1.2.    Digital preservation.
    •    1.2.8.1.3.    Digital scholarship.
    •    1.2.8.2.    We look at issues in development of the library profession.
    •    1.2.8.3.    People talk about librarians but not archivists. Important distinction.
    •    1.2.8.4.    Very clear that once content goes digital, distinction is magnified. Once in digital form, items continue to have meaning, but the meaning may be altered. One can argue that the narrative form was optimized for codex, but in electronic form approaches change. Search, index.
    •    1.2.8.5.    Also a Mellon beneficiary; would like this to move forward in a parallel/cooperative way.
    •    1.2.8.6.    Early American history, archaeology, ethnobotany.
    •    1.2.8.7.    For a humanist, what happens at scale? "You must screen the backfill." "It's only 14th century; we're going for Rome."
    ▼    1.2.9.    G8.
    ▼    1.2.9.1.    Three career stages:
    •    1.2.9.1.1.    US: scholar, social anthropological approaches to texts.
    •    1.2.9.1.2.    __ technologies officer at University, tries to update technological approaches. Get people not to use Excel.
    •    1.2.9.1.3.    Serves ~ 130 scholars across arts & humanities. Corpus linguists, all kinds.
    •    1.2.9.2.    Enjoys that she can create change in the environment. Gets changes in, gives them away, tries to ensure that they're used responsibly. Changes in how digital humanities is viewed. Hopes that the Observatory will be seen as a resource.
    •    1.2.9.3.    Concerns: sustainability, piecemeal development.
    ▼    1.3.    Questions not to forget
    •    1.3.1.    What are the distinctions between enclaving something and opening it up? Technology can facilitate. Certain sides can benefit by openness while others should not be exposed, but who gets to decide this? Can making something too available result in an alternate kind of enclaving?
    •    1.3.2.    Licensing issues.
    •    1.3.3.    Interoperability.
    •    1.3.4.    Provenance. "Not a legal issue."
    •    1.3.5.    Translators.
    •    1.3.6.    Time to learn.
    •    1.3.7.    Community.
    •    1.3.8.    Product vs. process.
    •    1.3.9.    Reliability, durability, sustainability.
    •    1.3.10.    Fundamental alignment.
    •    1.3.11.    Library vs archive.
    •    1.3.12.    Scale.

Back to top

Group 1c - C

•    Is it commonplace for humanities to be underserviced as at my university?  (H2)
•    Three hopes (H1):
o    Many organizations expressing interest in PB is very promising in that it may allow opportunity to set international standards for scholarly collaboration in this domain (digital humanities).  Critical mass may be achievable, and thus evolve into an international body for pulling together institutions and nations, a hoped-for outcome.
o    Sustainability.  "If it can't be done like this how can it be done?"
o    In development of tools that PB may produce, can tools be created for humanities scholars' purposes rather than having to make due with what's created in a commercial context.
•    Sustainability.  Finding information is the storage problem, not storing megabytes of content.  (H2)
•    What are the ground rules for scholarly practice in this digital age? (H2)
•    Being able to find content is key.  Being able to discover existing tools is key.  Being able to learn how to use available tools is key.  Develop particular kinds of interfaces that are standardized for canonical activities in A&H scholarship.  Glue that cuts the learning-about-tools barrier for A&H scholars.  Recognition that "standard" does limit function, but if the entry-point is easier and more sophisticated (in terms of functionality) that would be a win. (H4)
•    Academics are comfortable going to librarians for advice.  More difficult to get advice from IT staff.  In proposal, there was some mention of using grad students in humanities as "bridges" between academic faculty and IT professionals.  Straddlers.  (H2)
•    Disc space on any given computer is being filled with digital media (not text).  What does the "replacement" of text as a primary area of focus mean to humanities scholarship?  What tools are available for searching on, annotating, extracting from, publishing, etc. these -- these are at a less-developed stage than tools for text.  (H1)
•    Infrastructure is already observably being used most for streaming -- that's what's the highest volume of bytes crossing the wire.  "Outtake" footage is huge from documentaries, Dutch are starting to look at universities as repositories of that valuable material as research source material.  (H5)
•    Difficult to decide on an abstract architecture when bottom-up tool development is moving (percolating) so quickly.  What can facilitate quick and agile adoption of quickly developing tools.  (H3)
•    Is PB able to do "the desk research" given its scope (to point in the opening session).  (H6)

To share with the workshop as a whole:

•    1. [hope] Critical mass.
•    2. [observation] Multimedia:  explosion in non-textual artifacts.  Makes computing needs for A&H quite comparable with needs in the sciences, given high volume of digital artifacts.
•    3. [question] Sustainability. How does Mellon foundation see sustainability growing out of PB?  What are the external factors affecting sustainability?  What needs to be sustainable is not a tool (which is likely to be supplanted), but the artifacts and metadata created with that tool that need to be sustained.

Back to top

Group 1c - D

•    Is it commonplace for humanities to be underserviced as at my university?  (H2)
•    Three hopes (H1):
o    Many organizations expressing interest in PB is very promising in that it may allow opportunity to set international standards for scholarly collaboration in this domain (digital humanities).  Critical mass may be achievable, and thus evolve into an international body for pulling together institutions and nations, a hoped-for outcome.
o    Sustainability.  "If it can't be done like this how can it be done?"
o    In development of tools that PB may produce, can tools be created for humanities scholars' purposes rather than having to make due with what's created in a commercial context.
•    Sustainability.  Finding information is the storage problem, not storing megabytes of content.  (H2)
•    What are the ground rules for scholarly practice in this digital age? (H2)
•    Being able to find content is key.  Being able to discover existing tools is key.  Being able to learn how to use available tools is key.  Develop particular kinds of interfaces that are standardized for canonical activities in A&H scholarship.  Glue that cuts the learning-about-tools barrier for A&H scholars.  Recognition that "standard" does limit function, but if the entry-point is easier and more sophisticated (in terms of functionality) that would be a win. (H4)
•    Academics are comfortable going to librarians for advice.  More difficult to get advice from IT staff.  In proposal, there was some mention of using grad students in humanities as "bridges" between academic faculty and IT professionals.  Straddlers.  (H2)
•    Disc space on any given computer is being filled with digital media (not text).  What does the "replacement" of text as a primary area of focus mean to humanities scholarship?  What tools are available for searching on, annotating, extracting from, publishing, etc. these -- these are at a less-developed stage than tools for text.  (H1)
•    Infrastructure is already observably being used most for streaming -- that's what's the highest volume of bytes crossing the wire.  "Outtake" footage is huge from documentaries, Dutch are starting to look at universities as repositories of that valuable material as research source material.  (H5)
•    Difficult to decide on an abstract architecture when bottom-up tool development is moving (percolating) so quickly.  What can facilitate quick and agile adoption of quickly developing tools.  (H3)
•    Is PB able to do "the desk research" given its scope (to point in the opening session).  (H6)

To share with the workshop as a whole:

•    1. [hope] Critical mass.
•    2. [observation] Multimedia:  explosion in non-textual artifacts.  Makes computing needs for A&H quite comparable with needs in the sciences, given high volume of digital artifacts.
•    3. [question] Sustainability. How does Mellon foundation see sustainability growing out of PB?  What are the external factors affecting sustainability?  What needs to be sustainable is not a tool (which is likely to be supplanted), but the artifacts and metadata created with that tool that need to be sustained.

Back to top

Group 1c - E

-Need for training opportunities on a bigger scale than individuals
-Not just technical competence: learning to come up w/ the questions to ask using new tools
-Keeping up w/ new technology is a full-time job (role for information specialists to keep up with it for other people)
-Idea behind Bamboo: each humanist a collaborator king
    --But there's education here, too: how do you find the right collaborator, appropriate vocabulary, etc.
    --Credit is difficult w/ collaboration
-Make a "global pub", or go with a different model entirely? > social networking is 21st century pub
-Hard to find tools---other people's custom tools are based on different assumptions
    --Bamboo can make these services citeable > recursive citation
    --Doesn't solve one-author problem, but at least it provides documentation
    --Citing electronic sources "shows you didn't do your research"
    --Fear re: stability of URL's (librarian and/or Zotero can give you persistent link)
    --Electronic world is a new thing; we're used to dealing w/ books, but then again our paper citation system depends on redundancy of publication, and this might be lost as people get rid of paper copies of journals
-Fear that what we develop will be outdated by the time we're done; maybe by then everyone will be in Second Life
    --How to create tools that take advantage of changing environment that we can plug into?
    --Maybe Bamboo can help searching/understanding what's going on, but focused on ways of research rather than discipline names
-Museum curators provide one way of classification, invite help from public to do tagging that the public finds relevant
-In the US, higher education institutions are decentralized; lots of research for research, but not so much for infrastructure
-Perception that many institutions needed help in delivering help in supporting scholarship in A&H
-Europe says they do a much better job, and don't need this
-Is this accurate? Is Bamboo of interest? Do national supports reach down to individual scholars where they live?
    - Bamboo isn't funding, it's better access to technology services; more direct support to individual scholars
    -Lots of tools we need can work for other disciplines-- interesting to collaborate and share, not stay limited at national level
    -Collaboration in the form of talk with each other; would be interesting to extend to a global level
    -There is infrastructural funding in higher education in UK
    -But in arts and humanities, primarily funding individual research as foundation
    -Government money; trying to be more strategic -> this upsets scholars
    -System only operating for ~3 years
    -Collaborative projects, but still need things connected on national level
    -AHRC changing policy-- lots of individual sites, but they don't link up
    -If there's a major initiative involving N America, other people who share interests need to be part of this
-2 ways Bamboo could work w/ European Community (lower case)
1) Work much as it will in NA: engage w/ specific institutions
2) Bypass institutions, go right to various projects
    -In that model, Bamboo would consume those services
    -Would become points of integration and data sources
    -What do you think? Would it be disappointing if there's not institutional benefits? Is it okay to do it through national-scale infrastructure projects? Is there independent benefit to partnering w/ European campuses?
-Is there a way to do both? - Possible, but finite bandwidth
-EU initiatives are top-down things; focus on building tools and services, collaborative approach
    -Don't want duplicating services
    -Engaging w/ universities here has to be on individual researcher level
    -Integration w/ national programs is important
    -Don't want Bamboo to be mutually exclusive w/ European projects
-Tools databases have to be curated, or they become useless
 

Back to top

Group 1d-A

Questions, observations, hopes:

C1: Roadmap or directory of what exists already [DiRT].

C2: Would like to see a growing awareness of what the tools discovery process is so entrenched. But what if we find them? Old interfaces, defunct languages, different purposes.. still effectively unusable. So then what are the obstacles to re-use? Discovery alone is not enough.

S1: Viable/Valuable Software - book that may address these issues.

P1: Need a commitment from a resource provider to the interface (i.e. the API). That's the case with ARTStor. Or take the Museum of Fine Arts - there is no service level agreement. No guarantee that the service or the content will be there tomorrow.

K1: Small, liberal arts colleges really are underfunded. Many colleagues in the same boat. Working on Ernst Barlach.. copyright issues are a real pain. I can't spend years tracking down the rights. Very encouraged that there is a broad mix of people at the table.

R1: How do new faculty learn about what these tools are available for them? What kinds of tools are available, e.g. bibliographic tools, annotation tools.

M1: No tech resources at our museum - so we want to be able to make good use of this - rising tide.

EPPT tools for tagging images in TEI
-----------------------------

General discussion (some points I thought worth holding onto):

faculty tactical incompetency - don't want to do tech, or get asked to do it, won't get rewarded for it..

I don't mind learning technology, but I don't want to keep relearning it.

We (academics) can't even make the kinds of abstractions that we want our students to make that allows us to see that hypercard should not be model, view and controller.. we don't properly abstract our interactions with technology.

Campus mandates vs. discipline mandates. And we need these latter, else we can't do collaboration properly.

It's not about "preservation" it's "durability" (as a way to get away from the freeze-dry parts of the metaphor). Need more standards for e.g. context.

standards <> specifications <> practice (all separate but need to be captured collectively in a repository)

abstractions are not trivially related to the formats we use when we do our work [should go back to art historians and visual artists to appreciate that best?]

How do we revise our relationship to modes of communications when these modes are protean? [We've lost track of this relationship.] How do we reward large scale faculty participation in academic social networks?

Back to top.

Group 1d-B

S1:  humanities scholarship is images. Use of images more widespread. Copyright issues.
C1: align w challenges w. copyright and IP
H1: IP is one of the issues. Negotiate with press is a  major stumbling block.  To publish introduced issues. Not just sorting, keeping, using, what use can we make
C1: New digital literacy, mashup culture, clips from movies and arts and that's critical
MPA and RWA use of copyright and video and showing up; in evidence of learning.
B1: good w/ indexing text, nothing satisfactory with indexing images. How to derive meaning.
A1: Images, audio, data, gen Chinese culture at [large university].  Try to archive my doc video; tools so cumbersome. Video, so complex. How do you make that available so that it doesn't anticipate or impose categories that may not  be intuitive.
B1:  Narrative available. IPhone. Archives w/ no clue of what that was at [large university]. Images of classical landscapes, slides from all over Europe -- don't know what that was. It was folklore, and knowledge base disappears with retirement of faculty. Impulse that made person take it is gone.
S1:  Visual History Foundation - Shoah Project - all been digitized, created index w/ snapshot every 3 minutes. Millions of dollars
H1: no such thing as capturing that is so transparent.
K1: How many individuals are going to share?
H1: Doc editing and images. 2 ways - to use land records for Dolly Madison Project. How does she deal with the land after her husband dies, and how do I communicate to users. Her invitations are printed and we are databasing but visual understanding too. How do I categorize, need some way to approach intellectually.
A1:  From Bamboo Project, would hope for an innovative approach that we haven't thought of. Implementing new designs for cyber infrastructure - away from fighting same issues all the time. Uses of technology aren't solving now. Panasian - Digital Alliance Issue - want to help institutions develop local knowledge of dbs, in developing areas of Asia. Develop local databases w/ text, image, sound to preserve a dying language to art and ritual and making available in user friendly way to other parts of Asia and generally available where IP not a problem. Language is a user interface problem in input. A lot of manual labor, how much does it have to be tweaked.
H1: Need to create a more generalizable template
A1: Always a thorny issue - always something lost in the translation. A Wiki approach, a cloud. User discovers a link but who is the arbitator of that knowledge.
C1: Do templates need to be created? Studying Wiki, users creating vetted info. Give communities ability to tag and share knowledge. Don't ignore community aspect and social aspects. Not excited about path we are on -- too closed. The policies of Wiki and the governance.
B1: where does this sit?
K1: It's distributed
C1: A hope that infrastructure doesn't exist in one place. Google taking info in high performance area.
B1: Want it to be accessible. What if you take it out of our English language model?
A1: What level of control can you exert over it?
C1: How do you iterate that.
H1: One of possibilities w/ Bamboo is becoming big enough to create generalizable tools that community knows about.
S1: Biggest change is the multimedia, used to be text or image problem. Students using mixed media, we have to teach them how to do it, need machinery, way to share it and store it.
C1: Going away from SAT to portfolio model.
H1: Are we creating a monster?
S1: Trying to get people to develop digital journal, these are text and not using images, Must teach how to use the technology.
H1: PWPT to incorpate w./ images but not the same. Landscape and history in VA might come up w/ something very interesting. Need teaching environment to do it.
A1: Have to educate recalcitrant users - faculty
K1: Create a manageable scope
H1: And I want boundaries around Dolly Madison

Questions/hopes:

How to apply "Wikipedia-like" governance for community involvement. Community vs scholarship

What are boundaries drawn around a given "object" that both allow and prevent community engagement? How to keep pure but also open enough?

Bamboo big enough/open enough to encourage large-scale community involvement.

Back to top.

Group 1d-C

M2: research in one place, questions in another.  duplication of effort; how to make connections?  "craigslist for the humanities"
T1: there are lists in every discipline, but CL model may not work because descriptions vary.  "librarians as brokers"; we need a group to curate the research apparatus.  how to taxonomicaly characterize?  "rosetta stone" of research.
K1, to T1: is that tech or a group of people?
T1: catalogue.  how to categorize?
T1: what if we create a DB and it becomes authoritative?  ex. of google replacing the card catalog
B1: "middleware"; create a tool which brings existing tools to everyone on their own taxanomic terms.  how do we apply that to "i'm a researcher; help!"
W1: CL is popular, people know "start there".  maybe bamboo could achieve a similar degree of ubiquity as a starting point.
M2: question of advertising what you have and what you need.  ex: curator digitizing a manuscript, needed an expert in ancient persian.  how to find that person?  their art librarian went to the right mailing list and luckily found someone, but might not have.
T1: the rare is valuable.
P1: group like this can "narrow down distance" so that humanities folk participate
K1: how to find info in different formats?  integration to ake something discoverable.  lists won't go away; even with well-described data, someone needs to draw context.
T1: "hygiene factor"; professors who can't wrap heads around ideas like databases.  technological literacy element.  "aim for a certain generation?"  how di i ask for the magic incantation?
B1: is the role of this group to serve as the brokers?  do we need a more formalized way to do what we already do?  seems to be a need (bambo or not) for a group of "consultants" who can cross disciplinary languages.  handholding for the technophobic.
K1: "faculty development" -- understand not ust that db's exist but that they're useful.  not always clear that the effort will save time down the road.  difficult to educate people on why tech is useful.  db as a form for new media.
M2: faculty preconceptions of db as something you use in business or the library but nothing to do with "my" work

commonalities:

P1: tech literacy deficit in the humanities; fundamental questions in humanities are important.  exploring the way in which emphasis on basic humanities process might be a way of moving forward.

cases of software working very well, try to do outreach, faculty say "what do you mean, downoad software?"

why humanities so far behind?

M2: wasn't a need
M1: money ain't there
K1: need for tech support, not voiced
M2: humanists aren't used to a collaborative model

P1: at&t, fone wasn't perfect but seemed close eough.  coputers are perceived as expensive and difficult to use.  developed by larger enterprises than hum. will ever have.

M1: cultural issue?  library and IT seen as "support"

M1: human genoe project for the humanities, where you might not be doing genetic resource but you see the value of a big project
T1: reward mechanism is wrong

Back to top.

Group 1d-D

Why are you here?

- [public research university] - asked by CIO - should we or shouldn't we put some
of central
IT resources towards those effort

- D3 - [private research university] - is in the bamboo endeavor
   - asked to attend on behalf of library management to see
   - particularly with regard to content
   - have to report back

- D1 - [private research university]
   - have to report back -
   - we have a pretty good infrastructure for supporting digital
     teaching initiatives
   - missing somethign similar for research

- J1 - [private research university]
   - how to effectively connect it to department priorities and programs
   - build some bridges
   - engage imagination of the faculty
   - there is some separation between technology and the faculty
   - vision of services and tools
   - Developer time

- R1 - [private research university]
   - CCNMTL - around for ten years
   - CDRS - around for ten months
   - looking for ways to not reinvent the wheel
   - fill gaps - use what we can use and plug in
   - if we need to build it but in collaboration
   -

- D2 - [private research university]
   - from this work can we come up with common platform
   - common services to be a little more agile
   - we can't build everything
   - building the community may be the best part
   - rare to have IT, faculty and librarians together talking about
     similar problems

A1 - [private research university]
   - hard to humanities involved in digital research
   - we don't know what is available
   - understand what it actually means, digital research
   - introduced to online tools for the classroom
   - there have never been quite the same for research tools
   - thirdly - [private research university] different type of institution
     - moving away from teaching to more research institution
   - interested in scholarly communications in particular
     - not just in physical location
     - younger faculty are able to work virtually
     - conversations - is a new experience

- nature of humanities
   - humanities scholarship - doesn't lend itself to collaboration

- we don't think of the library as the lab
   - the research process - make better use of tools

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Community Building
    - IT, researchers and librarians together talking about
    - Scholarly Communications among researchers
    - improved collaboration researchers

2. Make technologies accessible to Humanities Scholars
    - easy to find
    - standards to understand how they work
      - descriptive for both content but function
    - make them easy to use
    - "don't Reinvent the Wheel"

3. Make it a natural part of the scholar's workflow
    - collective as well as individual level
    - across disciplines, across boundaries,
    - institutional conservative

Back to top.

Group 1d-E

A1: Level of digital literacy at my university was quite low among departments, level of understanding of what could be done wasn't there yet among most
-Show them the things they don't know they need to know, but they do need to move forward

A1: Zooming out vs. zooming in, now we're zooming out to a broad community
-A support group is nice, but sometimes you need to get on with your project and see if it's picked up by others
-What can concretely be achieved?
-Extra insights/solutions to organizational structure > our university is very decentralized
-What's the optimal structure for supporting humanities?

S1: What's the answer to "now what"?
-Interested in shared/collaborative scholarship - why can't this happen in humanities?

P1: Successful workshop would clarify what Bamboo can do

A1: Interested in what counts as true scholarly work towards your record
-Limitations of paper; when will digital work begin to break in and be recognized
-What does it take for that to happen?

H1: Bamboo is a part of that, but not something it can address directly
-The work to affect a cultural change will happen elsewhere; it's a slow process
-Recent project - scholarship was great, people read it on-line, but monographs were nor reviewed by enough (high quality) history journals to count
-Had to push hard on tenure committees to convince them it's good stuff despite lack of paper version

A1: Beginning to come through in an acceptable way in books published in paper/e-books

H1: People's perceptions differ between digital/print and just digital
-Irrational pushback to born-digital good scholarship

A1: Exist peer-reviewed online-only journals, but I don't know any
-The ones I use are available both ways

S1: Have to be self-confident and at a certain stage of your career before you put anything up like that

A1: How ready are faculty for digital applications in the classroom?

P1: Iterative process; teaching to images > familiarity with Powerpoint, but resistance to more complex solutions for images
-Considerable resistance 3-4 years ago in history of art and architecture to move to -Powerpoint from slides (capturing colors, image quality, etc)
-Variation between slide quality is more comfortable than two different projectors
-Philosophers don't do much; we did a use case, and in theory they could use video, audio

S1: There's early adapters, some work with 1st year students in innovative ways (multimedia composition)
-At Dartmouth, they have a class for students w/o strong writing skills (esp. international students or Native American students, have to take two term course in writing)
-Can make films, take pictures, add music, think of transitions, think of it as a paper
-Students learn to "compose" in a different way, then do a research paper dealing with their multimedia composition
-Very successful program
-New Media Center is interesting place to go

A1: One class in East Asian - students submit all work in movies
-Use of tools is a central thing
-Faculty worried about students' strong knowledge of new technologies
-Faculty also not worried; quality of papers not improving
-Some students think "if it's not easy to find, it's not worth finding"

A1: Is this as important as 'should there be a hierarchy of quality/reliable of internet resources', such that people learn where to go to get the good stuff?

P1: This is at the heart of digital literacy, where librarians can play important role
-I couldn't cite a generalized encyclopedia as a student, I had to go to authoritative sources

S1: "Information literacy" is too narrow
-We each have our own terms, we need just one

A1: How can using tools change what we do in a substantive sort of way?

A1: One of the articles of faith is that if you're doing the same thing in digital form, you're probably wasting their time because paper does it better
-Close reading vs. distant reading - doing analysis of one vs. tons of texts
-Capacity to zoom out and analyze entire body of text

P1: What's Bamboo's relationship to such activities?
-Infrastructure vs. content
-If it's a collaborative project, what's the line between content-free reusable infrastructure and actual content of scholarly analysis?
-Lessons to be learned for "consortium" are less from nature of content than model of how technology was used to support the project
-Model like Amazon S3 - get content-free infrastructure for tools, set up your chunk of a virtual server (pick tools and click) and virtual pie piece is cut out for you
-How useful would such a commercial-free .edu sponsored non-profit kind of infrastructure like that be? Amazon S3 could go away tomorrow
-Raises intellectual property concerns

Our takeaway points:
1) Tools vs. content (P1)
2) How does digital change what we do? (+ collaborative scholarship) (A1)

Back to top.

Group 1d-F

Round II

Summary - great concern about how standardization can inhibit innovation, but came to think about how standardization will open new paths for innovation and bring new people into the discussion who cannot create their own digital tools but need them regardless; in particular, could Bamboo serve as a clearing house/ meeting place where those involved in Digital Humanities could share their work, find new collaborators, share ideas, and push for increased interoperability and expand fair use in the digital environment

B1
doesn't use prepackaged design tools -- don't like how they make me think
afraid Bamboo will become to rigid
hope Bamboo will be flexible for new uses and infrastructure

D1
echoing B1
Bamboo as counterpoint to innovation
need advocacy for Digital Humanities -- use of primary source being generated

T1
tension between infrastructure and innovation
for 90% of digital humanities work can be put under basic categories and structures to remove duplication
need to allow duplication, Bamboo needs a competitor or else Bamboo will take over the garden and use up all the oxygen
ex. Google Maps took over from Mapquest, not rigidity

J1
Bamboo about interoperability
Humanities AND ART (Art needs to fabricate its own)

A1
small institution cannot create its own tools -- J2 agrees (what about everyone else who can't build them)

T2 -- move away from fears

I1 -- incredibly ambitious, Bamboo proposal as "elephant and blind men" but need to find the right balance between commonality and usability, jury still out on what will develop from this -- how far can you go before you smother innovation
Bamboo as clearing house, meeting space, find out what others are doing -- rather than infrastructure

D1
library perspective -- need facsimiles to match
access to resources requires interoperability

J1
biggest question -- scope, NYPL doesn't have faculty ("library for the unaffiliated")
valued added by researchers, but which kind?
GATEWAY (A1 agrees) for enthusiasts and amateurs and independent scholars, non-university universities

D1
Libraries/Museums/Archives have been trying to working together for 10 years

J1
likes that Bamboo focuses on the researchers and what they need

FOCUS on Use and Reuse and the Origins

B1
Bamboo as (legal) Napster that creates new opportunities

J1 -- something that Bamboo could do
restrict access and prohibits fair use
expand use of digital resources

T2 -- BIG FEAR, managing expectations will be a huge job and can siphon energy from actual data creation
    Big Hope -- how can I help influence creation of middleware, what are the specifications and requirements,

B1 -- non-textual metadata

Back to top.

Group 1d-G

Day 1
Welcome from D1
            Problem of humanities scholars having to reinvent the wheel, every time they start
                        Instead of 2/3 tech, 1/3 scholarship, reverse that
            Different communities
                        Librarians, information scientists, CS, IT, etc.
            So, Bamboo
                        -shared services
                        -inter-institutional, inter-campus, inter-community
            Mission: advance arts and humanities research through the development of shared technology services
            "Research"
                        Scholarship
                        Teaching and pedagogy part of it
                        "public humanities," too
            Emphasizes cyberinfrastructure
                        Notes NSF, ACLS reports
1.         deep understanding of practices (present and future)
2.         layer of shared tech and data services
3.         how to support? Partnerships, organizations
Roadmap: workshops, demonstrator projects
    2008
            April - July: Workshop I, 4 instances
            Summer: Workshop II, identifying services
            Summer: call for demonstrator pilot projects
            November: Workshop III, selecting services:
    2009
            February: Workshop IV
            May: Workshop V: consortia and organizational models
            Documents
§          Report, Scholarly Practice in the Arts and Hum
§          Arts and Hum Roadmap
§          something else
§          proposal?
 
 
            Two layers metaphor: application-data collection
                        Seen in practice with Web 2.0
                        So how does this work in academia?
§          application: faculty, students
§          mashups and tools layer
§          data collection
Problems
1.         No connection to Google, so no personal interaction
2.         Data distributed everywhere in the world - how to use?
 
Today's plan
            Goal: Establish a core set of institutional and organization collaborators who will work towards the Bamboo vision
                        -understand practices
                        -create roadmap
                        -identify organizational staffing, partnership models
            Community design
                        "listening tour"
                        Framework of broad goals, commitment to action
                        Possibility of adjusting planning process based on community feedback
                        Implementation - whatever that is - will have responsibilities determined by community
 
Q+A
            Differences from natural sciences?
-Good idea, build up a comparison
-some things fit both domains
            Question about teaching
                        Needs to be part of discussion
                        Combine with research
            What about nontraditional schools, independent scholars?
                        Ex: Pixar University
            SOA query
                        Not enough REST
                        "running headlong into 1998"
            G1: must look forward
                        Too easy to fight the last war
                        Need to take public scholarship, public humanities seriously
            What about finding what's out there, or advertising what we've done? (S1)
                        Discovery of tools, yes, a problem
            IP problems?
                        Yes, an issue
            Grad students: important
            Internationalization?
                        Paris so far
                        Working on Asian workshop
                        Latin American contexts
            Politics of humanities
            How will Bamboo affect academic publishing?
                        We'll find out!

NCRIS funding
            Goals
being part of Bamboo long-term
work with national cultural interests
form a regional, Australasian Bamboo node (Un of Sydney, etc)
 
Discussion
 Our table
\ Are we on the cusp?               Evolutionary point
            Search breakthroughs for discoverability, makes us think about interoperability, future of use
            Changes to IP: Creative Commons, open licenses
            Willingness to think beyond institutional boundaries, acceleration of connectivity
  Grad students
 ** Internationalize the project, the services
            Critical to look at regional norms, challenges of
            Diversity issue    Visual media importance
            Importance of non-text media
  **Importance of increasing number of humanities subdisciplines, emergent practices
            Impact on shared services
  Other tables
            How do we train rising scholars in new skills
            Need for assessment tools to determine quality, plus track into careers
                        Get away from tactical incompetence
            Cross-boundary nature of innovation
            Fears about loss
            Digital technology shapes practices, changes content
            Harvard: distinction between infrastructure, content, and behavior
            Importance of transparency of process, of method
            Importance of resource discovery
-maintenance
                        -accommodate multiple ontologies
                        -longevity, sustainability
            Bamboo as opportunity for overcoming limited resources
            Bamboo could help overcome campus dominance (campus over discipline, field)
            Bamboo as force for data abstractions, document complexity, standards
            Humanists create abstractions as we go (question)
            How to get scholars to buy in, how to get it paid for

Back to top.

Group 1d-H

Workshop 1d: Planning Process and Understanding Arts & Humanities Scholarship

7/14/2008 1:03 PM

Overview: Bamboo as a whole

Bamboo is a community-driven cyberinfrastructure initiative that includes humanists, technologists, etc. interested in addressing the current and future generations' research and teaching challenges facing humanists and artists

The term "cyberinfrastructure" describes the new research environments that support advanced data acquisition, data storage, data management, data integration, data mining, data visualization and other computing and information processing services over the Internet. In scientific usage, cyberinfrastructure is a technological solution to the problem of efficiently connecting data, computers, and people with the goal of enabling derivation of novel scientific theories and knowledge.

a growing and deep understanding of the practices, directions, commonalities in the humanities between humanists, librarians, technologists, etc: now and in the future
shared technology and data services from across the world that can easily be found, used combined, integrated into key research and teaching practices and projects
evolving and stable organization

Borromean rings: three systemic, interlocking rings 

The focus of Bamboo is services. Hmmm... Services is an interesting idea. Using the word services makes Bamboo sound like the "icing on the cake instead of the "meat and potatoes." 

18 month planning project

Teaching, pedagogy, the community are all part of research

The straightforward and deep effects of technologies -- see the work of Dieterle (2006). Where straightforward effects are characterized by increased efficiency, deep effects fundamentally change procedures and understandings, making possible what before or otherwise was impossible or impractical.

The time will come when our descendants marvel that we did not know such evident things. - Seneca

The cyberinfrastructure is many domains, not one.

Research and teaching go hand in hand. It is difficult to disentangle the two.

Uncovering that which has already been built versus redeveloping the wheel

What is the core purpose of this project? For the community of 50 or the world?

The role of graduate students - not and cheap labor, as collaborators.

Bamboo is a desirable and beautiful plant in some contexts, a weed in others.

7/14/2008 3:03 PM

W1 -issues related to archiving information in/from multiple media; how to, do it better, access to resources that are already in place

B1 - the longevity of projects. Why do digital projects die so quickly. Why do they fade. How do we find the good work done by others?

M1 - strike balance between generalizability research models and contextually-specific models? The boutique and contextually rich examples.

C1 - federated services. How do we make use of things. A disintegrated community of scholars.

B1 - related to projects fading.

J1 - aqua-fur (sp?) project. Build a repository of meta-data. A place to harvest the meta-data. American social history Organization and professional systems that works against collaboration and sharing. The value and the rewards system by yourself/institution. We believe in sharing, but do the institutions interested in supporting the work. Hard to get things on the backs of already hard working people.

C1 - "recon" retrospective conversion. Too much weedy meta-data. Bringing good work into line.
   
W1 - to get it right, right now. Getting a common and/or standard format. It is more than the hardware and software.

F1 - linking different languages. How do you get parallel paragraphs into a usable format. What about copyright issues?

C1 - are graduate students asked to become programmers and lawyers?

W1 - becoming literate in multiple media.

E1 - Mellon Work (harnessing virtual worlds for arts and humanities research). Look up Scholar Source

J1 - d-space a groundbreaking digital repository system that captures, stores, indexes, preserves, and redistributes an organization's research data.

Whole Group Conversation

7/14/2008 3:40 PM

Tactical incompetency - astrophysical researcher that cannot figure out the VCR

Hyper-connectively and internationalization - how do we define community?

Cultural versus technical challenges

Amazon S3 project -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_S3

Transparency of processes and procedures, a hallmark of the humanities and arts.

Humanists are not interested in re-learning technologies year after year. IT changes so quickly. The knowledge is not like riding a bike.

The transportability of knowledge and skills.

The durability, not just the storage.

Reference

Dieterle, E. (2006). Wireless handheld devices as tools for thinking and learning in university settings. Unpublished Qualifying Paper, Harvard Graduate School of E1ucation Cambridge, MA.

Back to top.