Navigation:
Documentation
Archive



Page Tree:

Child pages
  • Exercise 6b 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

Group 1a - A

- magic wand - equals money
- can bamboo create reward at the tenure level
- needs human interpreter - some way to get info about the tools without high need for technical knowledge
- development of lots of labs. Immersive, collaborative , accessible, visual
- good summary of other discussion on the slides.

70-% of faculty have no tech skills beyond email

Back to top.

Group 1a - B

Y7: My daughter just went through. Give people more time to think. Too much is an anathema.
Y2: please give me a 2:2 load. I want access to a network of people.
Y5: I want a magic room, where I have access to information, everything in the world digitize.
Y1: I would want that too but access to my thoughts.
Y3: I would see ip issues would be part of the system. A middleware layer that resolves stuff. The financing and infrastructure is already there and nobody has to think about.
Y7: I want access to coaches, mentors, experts. And a willingness to talk to me. There is money.
Y1: I realize what power I have with staff.
Y2: Taking this collaborative model and allowing students to collaborate hear and lets them experiment and
Y5: Classes should be more a partnership. Students are more your sensors into the world.
Y2; You have to be more in the role of guides. Let the explorer explore. I want a guide in a room. Experts guide you in an area in knowledge
Y4; Student add their own perspective purpose.

Back to top.

Group 1a - C

Z9: It's in the air. My vision, the future will be that the libraries and museums will be together as repositories of digital content. Michael will have a site pop up on his screen and all the content will be there. The sociological barriers are formidable.
Z12: Was a funding problem. Microsoft is working on this. The problem is that we don't have anyone leveraging the tools being built in a coherent way. The magic wand... we need an aggregated magic wand
Z11: Redundancy dissolver. I would like to free up money within projects. I try to pay people. Bamboo needs to make people opt out instead of in to using other technology solutions.
Z8: Never complete.
Z11: We should not talk about tools. How do we get to transparency.
Z11: Tenure committee and letter writers can't tell if your work is original. Must be built from scratch.
Z4: Working with UC Press to identify outliers to give validation.
Z11: Bamboo could offer other opportunities. Academic technology services. Should publish citation information. We need documentation with impact factors. Our only measure is quantity. If we could add one more metric, it would be great.
Z4: If all the repository information could get from the desktop of scholars. The repositories should not be siloed at any level. The other thing is if we could map publishing onto layers of publishing.

Back to top.

Group 1a - D

• Magic wand question:
• X1: Federated search
• Z5: Everything digitized. (We've invested a lot in this.)
• X1: Not just digitized, digitized well. They want access to everything.
• X5: People get a lot of mileage out of even things not digitized well.
• Z5: Remove the transaction costs at each step of the scholarly process. People want "clean" access across the steps. Licensing is a clear cost that's very common.
• X5: Going to library to input text from primary materials. It's an interpretive act itself.
• Z1: Subset category of digitizing: Wand would solve the problem of locking & unlocking materials. Look at PDFs: For some purposes want to unlock PDFs
• X1: It's part of a bigger issue of technology needs. We need a more fluid understanding of permissions and need to make that really easy.
• X2: Is this a version control issue?
• Z1: Yes. Say I want to cite a passage in a PDF, want to cut & paste.
• X6: In Jstore, cut & paste of PDFs is common. Two orthogonal issues: Maybe don't have $; versus access
• X5: Why doesn't this material work with this format?
• Z1: It's a standards issue. X1 agrees.
• X1: When referencing materials online, it would be nice to know the right way to reference that material. Technologically easy, but not being done. What if we had a phone book of standard profiles of scholars.
• X6: It exists in the open-source world.
• Z1: I can't edit an .MOV in Adobe. Compatibility issue.
• X4: Ability to easily move in & out video etc. doesn't exist
• Z5: How do we back out of these mashups to get back to the original data? And how do you give people relative credit (Big issue for tenure)
• X2: Implies metadata for digital rights management.
• X4: Mundane magic wand: Where do we put data & back it up. Trusted repository.
• X2: And how do you get at it in multiple contexts.
• X1: Requires standards for interoperability.
• X4: Heard that the more you have standards, It hamstrings things.
• X2: When you have open standards you don't have the problems w. proprietary stnds.
• X6: Just having a standard doesn't solve the problem; need a community that supports it.
• X1 & X6: That's where Bamboo can help.
• Z5: GPL helps. X6 agrees
• X2: Important to not recreate standards that already exist. Some corps. Make variants because they don't like 1 thing.
• X1: A Microsoft std. isn't a standard if it's proprietary.
• X5: Having been thru a bunch of standard-setting processes, they're very difficult & don't always happen in the time they're needed.
• X4: Are there people related magic wands?
• Z5: Google's model of giving people free time each week.
• X2: If give staff time to work w. faculty, would make more collaborative relationships for the future.
• Z5: Cultural inertia is a problem
• X6: Would like everyone be able to have computer language literacy; at least a short script.
• X4: It's like everyone needing to be exposed to Shakespeare; or like knowing to type
• Z1: We need to make more magic wands.
• X1: C. Woodward cited need to find other scholars; we see this issue over & over again. Need something to see relationships between people & objects. Michael Shanks looking for something to organize his relationships w. text, objects & people. Aspect of a visual thesaurus; a wiki
• X5: Thinking about the academic/social map: Like or don't like is not rich enough. Mentors, colleagues, etc. as relationships across disciplines, tool
• Z5: Things that didn't work and failed would be a very rich resource.
• X1: Need a self-maintaining way of tracking project activities to see who's involved and what state it's in.
• X2: Wiki's do this. X1: Want inference based on conversations that are happening.
• Z5: Would like an index of similar projects

Back to top.

Group 1a - E

  • [ ] futures
  • [ ] topic: class - perception that the state universities blog, the ivies don't
  • [ ] suggestion: what about engaging with law/legal experts?
  • [ ] role of technical expert, can't scale easily but you need them as a colleague to make the work happen
  • [ ] redundancy dissolver & similarity aggregator

Back to top.

Group 1a - F

• Assess quality of on-line assets
• Use-anywhere interface (laptop, iPod, etc.)
• Make more time
o filter out the bureaucratic / administrative tasks of being an academic
• Discover digital tools of real scholarly utility
o Discover digital tools/resources that are available without having to spend loads of time or get converscent in stuff outside my field
• Mine data easily in ways that will get interesting results
• Search across data/collection silos, as if they were all one searchable body of information
• Build contexts across disciplines, of an object of scholarly interest
o "Transdisciplinary context builder" - text, time, geography, social and political contexts
• Access total repository of all humanities material that is CURRENT
o drafts of articles, conference papers, publications, etc., with citation index that is NOT months or years old ... A "highwire" equivalent of humanities secondary sources ... Like jStor etc. but current, today, and hyperlinked to cited items

Back to top.

Group 1a - G

Magic Wands white board:
Federated/deep search across DBs
Everything digitized
Tracking/finding reports, inferring content/category
Remove transaction costs: low-level tasks, licensing, reformatting, etc.
Solve the problem of locking/unlocking digital materials: both IP control & OCR process
More fluid access control
Better citation standards; Chains of credit in remixed data
Solve format compatibility issues
Easy multimedia authoring/publishing
Persistent trusted storage
Reuse of data, materials
Standards: open dev. Process, reuse of existing
Free time to work on "blue sky" projects
Everyone learns some basic programming

N1: New hires want to communicate w. students via blogging, IM. Faculty is posting everything teaching related. Closely related to research, as in sharing research via content mgmt system, but then also use it to share work.
T1: We're seeing blogging for workflow management.
M1: Seeing much more focus on transparency
C1: More social networking savy among new folk
T1: There's a blurred, fluid movement between social and other networking for interactions. Tremendous use of FaceBook, MySpace for things, including research. Their interests are interwoven: can't easily separate personal & research interests.
N1: When we look at technologies to support folks, we need to be aware of networking effects.
T1: Need to be aware of multi-media. Lots of people come in with skills in m-m. We found humanities grads were very proficient in using various forms of m-m.
T1: Younger people have less tolerance of the inertia in the existing systems.
M1: We're seeing it too .
C1: They want to immediately come in & make changes.
D1: When it comes to scholarship, there's trepidation ; they change when they get into graduate programs
T1: I have a good example of this. Had a conference w. collaboration. After conference IT wanted to close down the collaboration site because an external person was accessing it.
D1: We're asking what do you share, why, & with who?
N1: The new thing is the openness, but there are still many who aren't willing to share. We took emails of grads & undergrads. Some grads had FaceBook; others didn't want to share info. in that way and they consciously didn't do it. It has to do w.l personality.
T1: When have to build your credentials, people think they better not share so much.
O1: If a requirement of a dissertation is to prove novelty, there's a disincentive to share.
T1: As grads move along, they more conform to the expectations of their professor.
N1: We did a study of collaboration in humanities. Found post-docs were open to the idea of collaboration despite dissertations, etc.
D1: People are very choosy about who they share with. There's an intergenerational model on publishing. There's a back-an-forth interdependency: You might now depend on a GIS grad student in order to do a degree in a different dept.
T1: People are getting $ partly through memberships, professionally. Among younger folks, memberships are becoming more peer-to-peer
R1: Lots of students blog heavily in their earlier yrs to engage, but when people get more invested in their own research there's a bit of fear, including of things being taken out of context. Don't want someone saying "a UCB researcher says...". Can get someone in trouble. Also, when look back at things written in earlier years, can be embarrassed.
T1: What about sharing info. about sources and where to find them. I see a wiki about where to find things in different languages
N1: Yes, they're building shared databases
T1 & R1 agree.
N1: Seeing a lot of GIS data and visualization.
T1: To what extent are new folk replacing library search w. Google search. M1 says "huge".
T1: Frightening how exclusively people rely on Google.
D1: It's the first place people go (to Google).
N1: There's a reliance on electronic sources (Some young people have never seen book journals.)
C1: Students don't always understand the big investment U's pay for online journal access.
O1: To what extent are online journals a scholarly source for research? C1: Authors are cited much more when journals are online. D1: Not definitive. Need to disaggregate what's ref'ed for research versus teaching.
O1: In my field no one uses journals (technology field) because too old by the time it's published.
D1: Parallel systems exist
T1: Varies widely by field. (Others agree)
T1: Within just astrophysics, there's a lot of granularity w.i. subgroups on how research is done (context of online vs. journals)
Magic wand question:
N1: Federated search
T1: Everything digitized. (We've invested a lot in this.)
N1: Not just digitized, digitized well. They want access to everything.
O1: People get a lot of mileage out of even things not digitized well.
T1: Remove the transaction costs at each step of the scholarly process. People want "clean" access across the steps. Licensing is a clear cost that's very common.
O1: Going to library to input text from primary materials. It's an interpretive act itself.
T1: Subset category of digitizing: Wand would solve the problem of locking & unlocking materials. Look at PDFs: For some purposes want to unlock PDFs
N1: It's part of a bigger issue of technology needs. We need a more fluid understanding of permissions and need to make that really easy.
M1: Is this a version control issue?
T1: Yes. Say I want to cite a passage in a PDF, want to cut & paste.
R1: In Jstore, cut & paste of PDFs is common. Two orthogonal issues: Maybe don't have $; versus access
O1: Why doesn't this material work with this format?
T1: It's a standards issue. N1 agrees.
N1: When referencing materials online, it would be nice to know the right way to reference that material. Technologically easy, but not being done. What if we had a phone book of standard profiles of scholars.
R1: It exists in the open-source world.
T1: I can't edit an .MOV in Adobe. Compatibility issue.
D1: Ability to easily move in & out video etc. doesn't exist
T1: How do we back out of these mashups to get back to the original data? And how do you give people relative credit (Big issue for tenure)
M1: Implies metadata for digital rights management.
D1: Mundane magic wand: Where do we put data & back it up. Trusted repository.
M1: And how do you get at it in multiple contexts.
N1: Requires standards for interoperability.
D1: Heard that the more you have standards, It hamstrings things.
M1: When you have open standards you don't have the problems w. proprietary stnds.
R1: Just having a standard doesn't solve the problem; need a community that supports it.
N1 & R1: That's where Bamboo can help.
T1: GPL helps. R1 agrees
M1: Important to not recreate standards that already exist. Some corps. Make variants because they don't like 1 thing.
N1: A Microsoft std. isn't a standard if it's proprietary.
O1: Having been thru a bunch of standard-setting processes, they're very difficult & don't always happen in the time they're needed.
D1: Are there people related magic wands?
T1: Google's model of giving people free time each week.
M1: If give staff time to work w. faculty, would make more collaborative relationships for the future.
T1: Cultural inertia is a problem
R1: Would like everyone be able to have computer language literacy; at least a short script.
D1: It's like everyone needing to be exposed to Shakespeare; or like knowing to type
T1: We need to make more magic wands.
N1: C. Woodward cited need to find other scholars; we see this issue over & over again. Need something to see relationships between people & objects. M2 looking for something to organize his relationships w. text, objects & people. Aspect of a visual thesaurus; a wiki
O1: Thinking about the academic/social map: Like or don't like is not rich enough. Mentors, colleagues, etc. as relationships across disciplines, tool
T1: Things that didn't work and failed would be a very rich resource.
N1: Need a self-maintaining way of tracking project activities to see who's involved and what state it's in.
M1: Wiki's do this. N1: Want inference based on conversations that are happening.
T1: Would like an index of similar projects

Back to top.

Group 1b - A

- [ ] what if you had a magic wand?
            - [ ] tools must be translatable among roman/non-roman languages
            - [ ] multimedia forms of writing and expression --> new model for publication
            - [ ] cloning!
            - [ ] is the "magic wand" model of expectation itself limiting?
            - [ ] what happens to humility in the presence of the text or artifact
            - [ ] or do students sometimes have way too much humility?
            - [ ] I need more finding aids in physical archives -- online tools that tell you "what's there" in the physical archive
            - [ ] more funding to digitize objects than to create finding aids for physical objects? -- need financial support for metadata, maintenance, discovery tools
            - [ ] work with experimental technology and the most sophisticated systems in service of the humanities with no end in sight -- partnership with the highest-end technologies.
            - [ ] not "i have an X, what can you do with it" -- but a "I am imagining this, and someone saying here's how we might get there"
            - [ ] if there's a tool, would people actually use it?
            - [ ] need to be able to imagine use of it -- see examples
            - [ ] what's the ROI? will it take so long to learn the tool that it doesn't pay off. is there a relationship between the tool and the broader process?
            - [ ] technology that can afford & enable foraging

Back to top

Group 1b - B

•    D3:  I would be magically connected/involved with scholars doing their practices.  Discovery!
•    D7:  An archivist who is conversant with my discipline.  Also the labor to perform the grunt work of digitization.
•    B8:  Be able to afford a digitization platform.  $12K per year is too much!
•    D3:  Enable the "haves" to share with the "have nots"
•    D14:  Pilot projects become really important via back-channels.  Has seen it in the sciences.  How can humanists get into those attraction-gathering veins of social networking.
•    D3:  It like to "inject some valium" into humanities scholars to calm the fear of technologies.  Smartness isn't the barrier ... fear of the technology is.  Might be fear of how they might be changed, fear of dependence, fear of not knowing something.
o    Who has the time?
o    Lots of reasons not to use new technologies ... a well-informed
•    D8:  publishing platform that's multimedia that works (doesn't freeze client computers) and allow/enforce publishing of quality materials.
•    D5:  Easy (for users) Content Management; make others' solutions available to humanities faculty in our institution.
•    Robin: Get rid of committee meetings!  And fewer barriers to access to collections that are commercially owned.
•    D3:  make technies have a greater sense of respect for technologies and tools that have come before their time ... one must bring the same critical stance to computes as one does to books.
•    A3:  Things that persist over time, common goods & ownership model must be balanced with global and disciplinary context ... otherwise we lose the importance of respect for scholarly practices of particular disciplines, fields of research, communities, culture.
•    B5:  mutual understanding:  humanists and technologists
•    D14:  give everybody a couple years off to promote undergraduate research ... (Council of Undergraduate Research).  What research activities can humanities scholars provide to 18 year old students?
o    D7:  in my classes, fieldwork

Back to top

Group 1b - C

D20: Canonical Bad Humanities Proposal. A Humanities scholar should not worry about infrastructure only on scholarship.
        D20: Biggest stumbling block is data structures and metadata. I would have a data architecture that would fulfill everyone needs and populate them with robust metadata.
B1: New Art historians are using GIS. Willing to design web courses. Blogging discussion lists. Rudimentary HTML.  The perverse individuality of humanities scholars may hinder such technological adaptation. There may be a generational attitude towards not accepting digital works as scholarship. Why are people in the Humanities so suspicious of Digital?
        D20: Better search engines, fuzzier logic, better metadata, precision that is precise for Humanities. More stuff digitized without cost-restrictions and with higher quality. More complex presentation tools with the ability to use 3D objects with Text and dead-easy to use. Multi-lingual.

D22: New folks are teaching on-line. With tech support from IT. Collegiality across disciplinary boundaries. English department folks are now talking with D21.
        D20: IRB needs to be reconciled with Humanities.
D12: Graduate student online networked, with server space,
            D20: Asking a question does not mean you are stupid. That would mean I don't have to draw information out.
        D20: A search engine easier than Google. Facebook for scholars.
D17: More varied background in Tech.
        D20: Better search engine, comprehensive. Better analysis more elegant than a spreadsheet. Technology resources that will help faculty create and present.
A1: Embedding media in courses makes them more popular. 
        D20: I want faculty not to be afraid.
D9: Is there a distinction between scholarship and digital scholarship? Library and Digital Library? When will the tag 'Digital' whither away.
        D20: Talk the same language. Do away with the "Digital".

Back to top.

Group 1b - D

E10: Quick and easy access to copyrighted material w/o worrying about IP. Quick and easy digitization of texts. So that we can offer a glossed texts.

E12: Flexibility of rolling my own technical solutions, more flexibility for individual faculty needs. eg, I want to use Drupal, let me do it.

A4: Sustainable ways to gather baseline data about student writing practices. Gathering reservoirs of samples of student data, and finding ways to slice and dice that data. Multimedia makes that proposition even more challenging.

D18: From the fragments to whole thing - I want the actual book as PDF. Print on demand machines on campus. Also take care of the IP issues for me.

A4: Something that will facilitate collaborative writing for the whole process. To compose something with a collaborator who is not on site. We need to look and work on things together. The google doc doesn't preserve the kind of additional formatting and annotations etc.

E12: Egalitatrian approach to this for other media and activities as well.

E5: More time and resources to work on the things we want to work on - we need to. More funding.

E13: When I'm a researcher, I'm always worried that my research findings are biased. Technology increases this problem. Magic wand would fix this.
Practical wands:
Bamboo should not just pursue technological solutions. If Bamboo merely replays that digital scholarship is important (as e.g. the MLA has been doing for some time), we won't progress from efforts in the past.

Bamboo should promote & advocate to universities new models of accessible, shared, credentialed knowledge creation. Universities, in turn, could be encouraged via "incentives" to commit to changing their policies vis a vis digital scholarship.

Bamboo needs to build collaborative services & technologies that provides an environment that exemplifies the intellectual value of digital scholarship.

Back to top

Group 1c - A

•     "I want several full-time people to organize all of my information" - F15
•    Reason for falling behind in IT because research assistants are sometimes more advanced making us lazy - F13
o    Could be corrupting to have too much staff because we fall behind.
•    Would like to have people who are clever in interfaces work on these projects - F1
o    Need people to work on interfaces, since most problems are not technological problems, but problems of interfaces
o    More XML editors or something
•    High resolution art photographs, easily accessed - F13
o    May be there on ArtStor, but not quite sure how?
•    Exceptions for copyright for scholars - F1
o    We are not hindered constantly by fair use
o    Broadly conceived in all media.
•    Single system to gain access to data, like in law - F12
•    Time - F7
o    Problem is that technology is continually meant to give us more time, though it never does because it takes time to learn new technologies.
o    If technology can be designed so that it "actually" saves time.
o    Technology allows us to do more tasks on our own, which means we lose time - F12
•    Computer technologies are up to conceptual levels we are working on, so we don't have to "bow down" to technologies - F1
o    Searching, for instance, according to concepts instead of text
o    So that computers can support scholars at the level at which we're working
•    Authors insisting that books be published alongside a keychain drive, or CD that is searchable, along with libraries putting more full-texts searchable online - F11
o    No reason for publishers to not do this - F13
o    More incentive for publishers to provide service - F12
o    Perhaps if more authors would ask about this, it seems to work with publishers - F15
•    Publishers find that this increases hard copy sales, since most people don't want to read full books online. 
•    Publishers can be more agreeable if authors would pursue this.
o    It is a changing landscape, a bit like music - F14
•    Most musics are now freely available digitally, so publishers may change their attitude as they're forced to
o    This happens in music with LPs being packaged along keychain drives - F11
o    The good thing about digital releases is that they can consistently be edited if there are typos.  Not preserving mistakes - F15
•    One interface that allows for the use of services all over the world - F1
o    New services are added, new texts are added, so no need to learn something new
o    A service repository that is intelligent
o    Aggregation service - F7
o    Actively filtered - F14
o    Portal that mentions the tool you're working with, but with interoperability for different available services - F1
•    Others? - Facilitating
•    Wikipedia effect for mapping, or art images which would somehow be instantly available - F13
o    No need to anxiously consult IT people, instead having a console of sorts
o    Tools and artifacts instantly available. 
o    Personalized ensemble of tools
•    A research discovery service, finding out what research is happening elsewhere in an institution- F12
o    Where relevant tools, resources, experience and expertise are within an institution.
o    Useful for matchmaking for collaborative/interdisciplinary research.
o    Perhaps by discipline? - Facilitating
•    Perhaps turning it into a yellow pages type interface - F1
•    Tools that would more actively promote new collaborative possibilities, while preserving individual institutions to promote careers in the humanities - F1
o    Right now, the tenure system makes collaboration difficult in the humanities, so an attribution service makes work and contribution clear.
o    Make the impossible possible.
o    Most people in the humanities are not ready to collaborate
o    Almost all collaborative tools now are available from Google - F15
•    So perhaps an academic service would be better.
•    Why not just use Google? - F12
•    Fear of Google knowing everything I'm doing - F15
•    Also, not as robust as an academic service might be
•    More promotion in administration means more difficulty in learning technologies - F15
o    Suite of things that would mean the level of skills we need to have could be lowered.
o    Too much investment in learning scripting languages, tools, etc. - F7
o    And presented in a human-friendly way, so that you don't necessarily have to learn a scripting language - F15
•    If we know how environments work behind the interface, we can work more effectively with interface
•    Does research discovery service imply research description method? - F7
o    So that when research is described differently, it might still be recognizable across disciplines.
•    Perhaps an agreement on ontology so that the information can be kept up to date. - F12
   
Back to top.

Group 1c - B

▼    1.2.    Magic wand?
    •    1.2.1.    Time!
    •    1.2.2.    No demands upon time.
    •    1.2.3.    Instant understanding of all available technology ** so that I can evaluate which are most useful and appropriate **
    •    1.2.4.    In technology-enhanced learning [TEL], we've run workshops for years. Kind of like conferences where academics go to show off, but allows graduates and researchers to illustrate how they use tools to younger students. Every field in which we're very strong has a summer-school program.
    •    1.2.5.    Chicken & egg program. In order to learn, they have to know whether the project/question is accepted. G9: "Legitimize digitally-informed scholarship"
    •    1.2.6.    Small wand: clarify and establish the right of quotation for scholarship materials. If your field is cinema, it's absurdly complicated to cite a work. IP issues. Further complications impeding scholarship.
    •    1.2.7.    In tentatively data-mining things, I would like to be able to call on scholars to evaluate results and have some kind of reward for participation, so that it's not simply a self-sacrifice.
    •    1.2.8.    Digitization. Someone please convert files, put them into a database in a way that's flexible. I use analog audio and 35mm, so digitization is essential but a lot of work. It's easier right now to flip through 3-ring binders, but this "data" is not as persistent. I need a useful retrieval database that's as easy to use. I want the technology option to happen in the same time as my analog -- loading a 40-slide carousel takes time T, and so should the digital alternative, while still providing accessibility, reproducibility, and other advantages of digital.
    •    1.2.9.    Instructional markup. We often have to comment on students' work. Some people prefer to use a pen, others would like to have some digital tools. There ought to be an easy way to do it.
    •    1.2.10.    Familiarity of best practices across regions.
    •    1.2.11.    Ensure that people can still get tenure despite broader public exposition of error in digital realm. Maintain the freedom to make mistakes.  "Freedom to fail."
    •    1.2.12.    Surveillance question.
    •    1.2.13.    Shut off all the computers in the classroom
    •    1.2.14.    Unsend e-mail.
    ▼    1.2.15.    See what would happen if you flipped the hierarchy, and put the students in charge.
    •    1.2.15.1.    We have this quite often in computer science.
    •    1.2.15.2.    In our organization, group members often are somewhat in charge.
    ▼    1.2.16.    Every new PhD as a condition of completion 5 years of strings-free funding. No teaching environment, completely off-road.
    •    1.2.16.1.    Humanities is over-committed, though: too many PhDs for jobs
    •    1.2.16.2.    But it's been that way for a long time. Emancipate the research from the requirement of tenure.
    •    1.2.16.3.    If you have five years of proliferating research, maybe 98% would be garbage, but some would be a gem.
    •    1.2.16.4.    A bomber is $400m.  We could do a lot of funding with $400m.
    •    1.2.17.    The world's PhDs are becoming more like American PhD. Give people more time for research, less pressure to acquire tenure. Give job descriptions where people are free to follow their own R&D without agency-imposed structures and objectives.
    •    1.2.18.    Broader sense, stop the entire Americanization of education. Newsweek institution ratings.

Back to top.

Group 1c - C

-Want coherent interface to the entire scope of your scholarly universe
    -You don't want to have to remember that pressing the back button destroys browser session here, but it's essential to work there
- Before magic wand, I'm intensely suspicious of using technology to give us more more more
- Magic wand: good language translation stuff
- Magic wand: more resources for digitization
    - Not duplicating what others are doing
-Magic wand - related to IP
   - Who gets the money masquerades as legal issue
   - Automated broker - do I have to pay? How much? How?
- Transparent data to separate processing from creating
- Very noticible; even Cambridge has depended on copyright access, hard to get a range of digital resources because of how funding streams work
-"Free information", but when you look at free vs. paid, services are not cheap - everything seems to be going towards the worst
- Magic wand - image scans that auto-update to new resolution cameras can produce
- Magic wand - digitzation of text and OCR problem, would be useful
-For me, putting people together and knowing what they're doing in different places wastes the most time
    -Start down a path, don't realize until 6 months later someone else is doing it and could collaborate
    -Omniscient just-in-time just-enough info system, not just research info but for what people are doing
- Academics have privileged rights that we're not asserting
    -University libraries, main subscribers to journals etc, yet we provide material they're publishing then get screwed to buy it back
    - Market isn't just access to materials, but certification market
    -This is part of how we get screwed - confused there's 2 different products at stake
    -As soon as P&T committees stop paying attention to it, but if they don't it won't change
- Going back to interface, starting point, flexibility
    -People can create their own, flexible starting point
    -People can tailor to their own needs instead of having to deal with stuff that looks and behaves differently

Back to top.

Group 1d - A

(J1) Harvest and render searchable large aggregated sets of metadata to enhance resource discovery. This could be a Bamboo, consortial effort.

(S1) Money for professional development opportunities (release time) for faculty to learn how to use and apply technology for research and teaching.

(B1) Can we help people know in some centralized way what is available - Google-like search for tools that fit their needs.

(K1) Sharing of data in common formats and common software across fields and sharing earlier in projects. Example: linguists data is highly relevant for film maker.

(P1) A multi-media scholars notebook. S2 is closest today.

(H1) Single sign on for access to scholarly resources.  Shibboleth adoption is coming along. Open ID as well which is likely

(A1) Lack of access to materials. Moved from a large institution to a smaller one with fewer resources.

(A1) Social networking/sharing of citations and annotations applied to research environments across institutions.

(C1) Lighter weight peer-review system. Can I stake a claim to an idea publically? (P1) Or could we write shorter papers. (S1) Significant challenge given that ideas can be tweaked enough to appear different.

(C1) Tool/ecology that connects publications, conferences, personal information, etc. to enable you to know "what people are up to." We have the data, but not the ecology/tool. (A1) This would be valuable, push with RSS feeds, etc.

(S1) Coalition of funders, agencies, and learned societies to map how we change the situation with regard to tenure and promotion for digital scholarship. (P1) Could we create a typology of the kinds of things that exist, that create and enable new methodologies or ways of looking at things.  (C1) How do we measure impact and citation for tools that have been built? How do we create a community of practice around citation of tools?

(I1) How do we assess the impact of grants, particularly in the technology area?  Point to downloads, known adoptions, etc. But questions resurface again and again.

(J1) If you could shift the center of gravity around recognition to infrastructure development, would that help?  We need people to do the building that was done years ago with the bibliographic system. (H1) But is there historical record of tenure and promotion for tool building? (P1) Leading examples of tenure granted is tied to co-publication of traditional articles and online tools and enhancements. Can we look to, support, and build on these.

(PO) What about preservation of diverse materials? (K1) That's the real magic wand. Assurance of preservation and migration, and have the resources to do it. (J1) In the library world we have large collaborative and national initiatives and organizations with scattered missions, but some entity and collection of entities with a focused mission on preservation and migration needs to emerge. (H1) There are LC and Mellon funded programs in this area - JSTOR, Portico, etc.

Back to top

Group 1d - B

8 - a better way to digitize original (print, photos, audio, film) materials. There is not a good way of changing from one medium to another. Born digital objects.

7 - stop duplicating efforts.

6 - a different support model for researchers in the humanities. Measured by ROI, but that is the wrong measure of success.

2 - harness the capacities of computers to archive and code the work and efforts since the 19th century. Moving toward a grand challenge/effort, which bring about, for example, new forms of motion pictures illiteracies.

5 - Bamboo as a mechanism for building consortia. The consortia approach.

10 - change the layout of the university and the library

4 - a problem with the planning effort of the Bamboo meeting. A preselected group who are doing digital work.

Back to top

Group 1d - C

R1: Faculty members with projects get individual people knowledgeable in their particular area to do IT support; shouldn't have to learn XSLT
S1: Stand in someone else's shoes when I read their work and understand it from their point of view; watch a film and be the director

J2: Cast-iron will
R1: Will to follow through, get it done?
J2: Completely eradicating institutional barriers (budgetary limits, short-sighted administrators, etc.)
S1: At least if everyone's taking a problem-solving approach to whatever comes up.
J2: Getting rid of the "I don't know what that is, therefore you don't need it. How about a listserv?" approach
S1: When you have determination, projects go really well
-You're willing to take the problem on its own terms, reach the solution you know you need rather than going for doable/accessible

D2: Individual egos are biggest impediments; "I know better than you. I don't understand, so it's not valuable."
J1: This isn't dissimilar to what it's like to get a monograph published (scholar doesn't layout type, design cover, etc.); scholars don't have expertise in design; disrespect on both sides, particularly of scholar towards supporting functions for the value of that work
-Are we setting up another structure like that? How can we do it better to avoid those breakdowns?
S3: Magic wand would confer mutual understanding...
J1: Respect for different strengths, different skills, understanding that "sole author" model of scholarship, when you talk about the finished product, hasn't been the case for a while
-Making the other pieces more visible and valuable

D1: Bottom layer of that layer cake is content, research is based around some initial matter
-One major impediment is scholars have less access now to stuff that might be of research interest
-Worse at capturing and making accessible the world's content output
-I'd find infrastructures that'd get us out into the archives of the world

M1: IP regime that respects the educational use while still allowing creators to benefit from their work
-Also, clarity around orphan works if nothing else
R1: How'd you define benefit?
M1: It'd vary by the field. Monetary if appropriate; depends on the economics
D1: They might just be happy with someone reading their work
J1: I'd go for something in between; a defined and bounded fair use zone that's cross-institutional, cross-repository, allows certain applications of tools/practices within a bounded space
D2: That space could be both teaching and research
S2: Cross-institutional is really important for licensed resources
-Research is more about collaboration across international and cross-intitutional boundaries
J1: We don't have students of our own, our research activities are people who float between institutions; they want to bring our stuff together with stuff from elsewhere
R1: Looking beyond institutional boundaries; lots of participants are in local communities
-Fair use zone should encompass more than just institutions
S2: There can be clearly defined communities in the usage groups
-But you can't always predict these communities

S2: Younger researchers are nimble at moving between technologies, drawing valuable content out of each one and wanting to put them together in a new way

P1: A technical Esperanto
M1: That people actually speak
P1: Breaking down technical silos that exist; exposing content so someone else can use it even if they use a different technology

D2: Funding issue; unlimited funds so things we do can be sustained
-Current funding models (projects, seed money, generous one-time grants) aren't conducive for making these things part of our regular life
-Too many things fail after initial funding is over
-Sustainability and durability (means you're using it and it's still ok)
P1: Micro-payments instead of macro-payments
-You pay for a search (quarter of a cent)
R1: Rice project; you get grains of rice, they ask you what a word means, and every time they guess it puts three grains of rice in a bucket (my kids use it)
-Advertising support? How do they deliver the rice?

S2: How do people in specialized areas find where the valuable digital resources are?
-Before, they relied on catalogs; you don't have that same organization now
D2: Magic clearinghouse
S2: Something beyond Google; it's pretty good, but it doesn't pick up everything
M1: Difficulty of knowing who's doing what; what's been presented; what research is in progress that you can benefit from, contact, tag onto
S2: Then there's delivery, how do you access it? Easier remote access.
-Not always possible without traveling to somewhere to use it.

D2: Who has what skills that might help your project?
-Craigslist of specialized skills (unusual language skills, etc.)
R1: There's eLance for freelance people (on the business end)

R1: Could Bamboo play a role in supporting the idea that there's new valid ways of scholarship that should be included in a review of tenure track work?
-Would administration say "hey, you do this innovative work, we're trying to break through institutional barriers"; might not make sense filtering down to departmental level
-Names of deans and organizations that will make a public statement of supporting these efforts
-There are people out there who might hear your cry in the wilderness "I won't write two books, but I'll mash up five pieces of art and make something of lasting value."
S2: In Australia, that goes to the government departments that give credibility to certain types of publication and give funding
P1: "Lasting value" - things that are digital, you don't expect them to have lasting value
-Redefinition of what constitutes lasting value for digital artifacts to achieve that quality

P1: A magic wand that allows the things that worked yesterday to work today.

Back to top.

Group 1d - D

P1: magic wand: i want to find all the (chinese) texts that exist relevant to a subject, in rank order of relevance, and thhen all the secondary work that has made use of those texts, and then hving chosing the text i want to pay attention to i want the text to be fully annotated for dates places persons titles whatever else.

M1: that's "bamboogle"

R1: access those things no matter what institution i'm at, regardless of location, resources

K1: would like that for film studies.  tap into every film made, copyright poses a problem for this.  MIT open courseware can't make films available because of copyright.  people doing research on youtube, not the method we'd like but it's available.  need to extend availability, adjust IP law

.......: open data movement analogous to open source movement.  you want copyright for citation.

P1: in a truly digital world people would find that you had said it first

C1: conference in may on supplementary materials for journal articles, talk of trying to get data sets out of cancer researchers, faced resistance about turning over data sets.  journals should require turnover of datasets for publication.  code of best practices proposed.  as editor, do i have to edit datasets now?

P1: "dataverse" solves this for journals.  where to put datasets, versions them. 

S1: magic wand: lets us find P1's magic wand, best practices everywhere.  how did you use your tool effectively?  really assessed methods.  moderated, peer reviewed directory.  it's great to share things but how effective were they really?

A1: "journal of digital failures" (john unsworth)  we're not good at sharing our failures.  wiki called "dirt", at library, good first step in that direction. (L1)

K1: we would need an online digital agent to help find stuff.  MIT media lab is working on something.

Back to top

Group 1d - E

Intellectual Property -- copyright laws with shorter more rational lengths to allow commercially published material, passed the Orphaned Works Law

Convertible, interoperable technologies for transferring technologies

better searching abilities across resources

think of digital and print as complimentary rather than hostile or competing (H1)

M1 -- books have become objets d'art

G1 -- "every object need to be accessed would be represented in the open scholarly information universe to a persistent surrogate" -- this will transform citation, ubiquitous infrastructure and record keeping

J1 -- better, faster, stronger, cheaper way of getting physical object digitized, especially handwriting recognition

OSR - optical SCRIPT recognition

Back to top.

Group 1d - F

 What can improve this work?

        Public presentation of scholarly results, more transparency

        Public transparency of process

        Making it easier for big projects

        Lowering cost and complexity of producing projects

        Central IT involvement or shared technology services

        Growing awareness of projects, perhaps a shared taxonomy

        APIs defined for various scholarly workflow components

        Shared project sustainability

        Support a shared space, safe harbor for collaboration; but individualism still reigns

        Expose faculty to models; create sustainable models; help faculty conceive projects using preexisting tools

        Web 2.0; shared knowledge of projects and tools

 Web 2.0 discussion

        We should learn from it in multiple levels

        Maybe model our development process on it

  Magic wand

        Boost faculty awareness of tools, raising consciousness

        Lightweight, shared metadata standards.  Like RSS, but more flexible and robust.  OAI-PHM is a start, but too big a gun.  Between RSS and OIA

        Marketplace of services: digitization, project design, technical services.  Apps and humans.  A la Yahoo Pipes .

        Improved access and authentication services, global and local .

        More awareness of projects and practices

        Commitment to open architecture

        Documentation writing - someone else!  could be a service
 

Back to top.