Navigation:
Documentation
Archive



Page Tree:

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

- Federated deep searches
- Copyright and creative commons advocacy?
o Ways to embed enablers for faculty to apply current wisdom about how to apply and assign copyright rules
- Enable interchange of tech/practice among different humanities organizations
- Develop a social network for A&H research
- Standards, universal design
- The rest of the discussion was captured well on the chart...

Back to top.

Group 1a - B

Y8: I.P. The idea that Bamboo can be.
Y1: Collaboration
Y5: Access to tools and people..
Y1: We are creating a vision statement.
Y5: A resource pool that affords collaboration across "experts."
Y1: How is Bamboo situated with reference to and building upon existing initiatives. Are we reinventing the wheel.
Y5: Bamboo is an infrastructure that can be populated with different kinds of content.
Y2: UC San Diego has parallel project.
L: What is real agenda of our funders
Y4: Will will all need to make clear value proposition?
Y2: Will need to provide dean with one sheet.
Y2: NEH is acquiring all new tools to be open source. Bamboo could facillitate all this?
Y5: We have a problem of data management? Who does what? Everybody is inventing everything in parallel.
Y7: They want library to go away and rich federation of databases.
Y8: JISC
Y4: We are bumping up against the limits of what individuals can do. With technology, we can do what the sciences are doing.
Y9: We are talking about collaborative scholarship.
Y9: You can't just collaborate with students to save time.

An enumeration of the projects, tools that currently exist and the people and institutions involved.

We need to move to a higher level of knowledge creation for which these tools are necessary.

Back to top

Group 1a - C

In general, group agrees that tools aren't the point ... but enabling a future evolution of humanities scholarship based on open-knowledge, sharable / extendable tools, is what's needed. Discussion gravitated toward Bamboo being a direction-setting group that would advise tool builders and cataloguers and providers what A&H scholars need. To be instrumental as a network/rhizome in effecting provision of the tools A&H scholars really need. Lower thresholds for access to scholarly tools and materials.

• Bamboo enables and supports social networks of scholars and technologists across disciplines and institutions.
• Bamboo could vet funding agencies to "grade" them on how well they meet scholarly assessments of scholarly needs
• Bamboo enables sharing of digitized resources and digital technologies and publications
• All this reflects principles of open-knowledge

Back to top

Group 1a - D

What should we do, what should we build, now and as a result of bamboo?:
Sustainability: We need visible, rapid launch with a lot of interest. Go for low hanging fruit, largest points of shared pain. Bamboo could deliver anything. But if we don't demonstrate value immediately and is not compelling, we won't get a second look. We need adoption, this leads to sustainability.
Shared pain.
Capacity for renewability.
We are asking institutions to adopt. Institutions aggregate pain and can work to help solve it.
Z11: Scholars need to clamor for bamboo.
Z9: Used to be that libraries were the key to demark the quality of the institution. Need to go to the learned societies. We need to prepare a manifesto. Second argument, must be economical. What's in it for me? How will this help ME? No matter the audience.
BotZ5 up: Scholars must swarm. How will the young people react to this? Recruitment.
Z11: Top down is accreditation agencies. Must be complimentary.
Z9: At NSF, the astronomers have yearly meetings to agree to support program X or Y.
Z13: International consortial model, at implementation, might develop showcase projects, but we could have the biggest affect by recommendations and guidelines. Creation of resources.
Z11: Discovery is low hanging fruit.
Z4: What is IT?
Z11: Honing, culling of these needs will happen in the next few workshops.
Z4: Practice, policy. This is a good approach.
Z8: How can the evolution of scholarly practices impact the evolution of technology?
Z12: Best practices. Parallel to tool generation is the practices.
Z9: Time slice. CS from Feb-Apr do what you wish. In May you freeze, then we work with the end users.
Z11: Infrastructure layer should be robust. Application layer can change and tweak. In a virtual environment you can have stable and dev versions of apps.
What should we do first?
Z4: Publishing problem. Humanists can't figure out other domains of publishing beyond the traditional.
Z11: Status issues, and sustainability?
Z4: Yes, both. What about work that does not fit?
Z11: No more use of the word tool. Lets focus on mechanisms that facilitate conversations multi-national, multi-language, multi-institutional, community.
2-tier approach. First, discover the pain (cause pain), then work to solve it.
The pain is collective pain. Bamboo should be egalitarian.
Z11: Now that its an open project, everyone can use it. If it works on one campus it will be available to others.

Back to top

Group 1a - E

Z1: The opportunity is for people to begin to learn practices & methods from other disciplines. Risk is to produce lowest-common denominator.
X1: In order to get funding, a consortium can say you need to meet certain standards.
Z5: Should encourage Mellon to continue to fund things like Bamboo; also NEH & other federal agencies. Might NEH function more effectively?
Z1: What can consortiums do and be? Lots of thinking there's a pooled approach to accessing materials common or shared; conformable somehow. That's good, but also there's the idea a consortium is more agile and could be part of a community; somehow used to spark innovation for a collective development process.
X5: Yesterday there were really interesting projects within disciplines, but one hopes they can be shared across whoever can use them.
X4: My assumption is that there will be a set of processes.
Z1: It's an open question as to the right level of discipline specificity will emerge. Don't want projects that are very idiosyncratic & narrow. Also the question of taking idiosyncratic project & creating something more general. Is it possible a consortium can develop tools for multi-media authoring.
X1: It doesn't make any sense. Have to have a project with real needs and develop for that. But if you have projects with conform to certain standards, it opens up ways of collaborating. Don't want a top-down thing. Stanford has problems with Sukai because tools were developed at a high level. Let the tools develop at a small level and via adoption let the useful ones succeed.
X6: BotZ5-up development has pushed out a lot of top-down ERP software. How do you encourage that?
X1: Via guidelines & standards, periodic evaluations.
Z5: A consortium common agreement on specifications or commons principles for consortium involvement.
X1: That would meet the needs.
X5: Allowing scholars to discover each other via a common place would help.
Z5: Does FaceBook suffice?
X4: Heard it doesn't, it wasn't made for scholars, wasn't made for that.
Z5: Are existing arrays adequate?
X1: The kind of info. one can mine from FaceBook should be available, though.
X6: FaceBook isn't being used for academic uses.
Z1: Institutional costs at enterprise level can be very high for products like FaceBook. It would require a lot of tweaking.
X1: But it's used for teaching because it can be the best way to communicate.
X5: We have the opportunity to enable ground-up ways of social contacts.
X6: Can use FaceBook without having your face on it. Lot of people feed RSF into FaceBook, and people can find them that way.
X1: Asking sexual orientation, in Facebook, isn't appropriate for our purposes, but if can take elements of it, it's valuable. In trying to support collaborative research, the people may not be at research orgs, but they need protected space. Shibboleth seemed to exclude various participants as not being in the(educational) proper realm.
X5: Have to have identity management in common tools, like editing wikis. There is a commercial identity provider that we use.
X4: What would really attract faculty? What would allow me to do things faster in a more attractive way?
Z1: Don't have a high-level answer. We've tried to approach faculty around projects they work on and try to introduce them to digital alternatives. Learned you make little steps. Researchers want to waste little time in learning new tools.
X1: Interoperability can help solve some problems.
Z5: Going back to digitization, how do we establish common formats across all this digitization and getting access to all these archives without having to travel all over the planet. And how to make them all interoperable.
Z1: The way you get access to archives in Spain requires a letter vouching for you and if the archivist likes the look of you, then maybe they'll let you see some things. (Z5: That could even happen in California.) It's a very different culture.
X5: The q. is can I get access in a way that works for my type of research. Don't know how that relates to Bamboo, though.
Z5: Clearly need a foundation piece to get more resources (digital) available.
X4: So many things are resources we don't even know they're valuable yet. Trying to solve digitizing everything in this consortium won't work. What about the next layer, of the stuff that's being produced:
Z1: ie. The standards of what's being produced.
X1: So much time is spent on things like licenses, access, standards. Have the consortium take care of the nasty stuff we don't want to worry about.
X6: The scanners don't want standards for economic reasons. Or a lawyer objects. Hard as individual projects, can't fight it, but as a large consortium can make a statement.
X4: Create swat teams around certain technical problems that people share? Natural language processing, GIS, et.al. are common problems that need support. Stanford has something like this.
X1: Great idea. Takes technology out of it.
X4: Would have to be some collaborative effort where people meet.
X5: Common issues, like data mining, algorithms are other examples of common problems.
X4 & X5: Take GIS , data viz, motion capture are all examples.
Z5: NSF is supporting San Diego on issues like long-term trusted storage. Not sure it's a consortium topic.
X1: Axle said yesterday there's lots of talk about tools, but tools need to prove their usefulness. If Bamboo builds, provides tools, but how you judge them.
X4: Funding is key.
X5: I really like the idea of identify cross-cutting technologies to multiple disciplines.
X4: It may also apply to the sciences.

Z5 supplemental comments:
1. Funding via private sector and encourage NEH to give better support, or IMLS.
2. Adoption of "Commons" principles w.i. the consortium as threshold for participation.
3. Focus on special collections & archives; categorical & systematic ways of collecting data

Back to top

Group 1a - F

  • [ ] group suggestions
  • [ ] must be both technical and collaborative
  • [ ] Copyright
  • [ ] tools for dealing with rights management
  • [ ] pressure group, legitimizing group
  • [ ] **Collaborative computing
  • [ ] user-generated contributions to the semantic web
  • [ ] complex groups of users in a landscape - may be traditional or non-traditional
  • [ ] Systematic survey of current needs, activities, and practices - need a bigger picture
  • [ ] needs to be public
  • [ ] distribute questionaires, interviews?
  • [ ] **Doesn't need to be "a place" - might never know you're using it
  • [ ] massively distributed, peer-to-peer, discovery system. some kind of meta-registry, clearinghouse that isn't evil or scary somehow
  • [ ] mechanism for finding colleagues, resources
  • [ ] digital concierge?
  • [ ] mechanism for finding funding?
  • [ ] some kind of auto-harvesting piece, auto-federator
  • [ ] integrating into existing systems for grant recipients
  • [ ] consolidating grant feeds, other kinds of data
  • [ ] mechanisms for exposing & reaching into multiple digital repositories across institutions
  • [ ] comes down to exposure of all assets, not just digital ones
  • [ ] a craigslist for project development? "I've got data, I've got a supercomputer with spare cycles, I've got algorithms I need to test."
  • [ ] interoperable with existing open source things like Sakai & Kuali - take advantage of local things, leverage a lot of existing tools & services
  • [ ] perpetual beta
  • [ ] cross-domain, unbiased by disciplinary boundaries
  • [ ] making sustainable, preservable, maintainable, succession, migrable
  • [ ] some kind of SLA
  • [ ] estate planning
  • [ ] project sustainability levels - is it eligible for the sustainability program
  • [ ] points of entry for people who have already done something that's off in the weeds
  • [ ] both ends of the comet - the bright shining front, and the dribbling tail behind
  • [ ] sustainability varies by institution, too
  • [ ] how to keep the conversations going?
  • [ ] will do a wiki as requested by mellon....
  • [ ] RSS feeds from site, wiki
  • [ ] aggregator from tags
  • [ ] what about a mailing list? newsletter?
  • [ ] future "deliverables"?
  • [ ] community
  • [ ] standard-bearer for interop
  • [ ] tech dev
  • [ ] mutual education strategies - IT about Scholarship & vice versa

Back to top.

Group 1a - G

What would be most fruitful for Bamboo to focus on and why (of ideas discussed earlier):
T1: The opportunity is for people to begin to learn practices & methods from other disciplines. Risk is to produce lowest-common denominator.
N1: In order to get funding, a consortium can say you need to meet certain standards.
T1: Should encourage Mellon to continue to fund things like Bamboo; also NEH & other federal agencies. Might NEH function more effectively?
T1: What can consortiums do and be? Lots of thinking there's a pooled approach to accessing materials common or shared; conformable somehow. That's good, but also there's the idea a consortium is more agile and could be part of a community; somehow used to spark innovation for a collective development process.
O1: Yesterday there were really interesting projects within disciplines, but one hopes they can be shared across whoever can use them.
D1: My assumption is that there will be a set of processes.
T1: It's an open question as to the right level of discipline specificity will emerge. Don't want projects that are very idiosyncratic & narrow. Also the question of taking idiosyncratic project & creating something more general. Is it possible a consortium can develop tools for multi-media authoring.
N1: It doesn't make any sense. Have to have a project with real needs and develop for that. But if you have projects with conform to certain standards, it opens up ways of collaborating. Don't want a top-down thing. Stanford has problems with Sukai because tools were developed at a high level. Let the tools develop at a small level and via adoption let the useful ones succeed.
R1: Bottom-up development has pushed out a lot of top-down ERP software. How do you encourage that?
N1: Via guidelines & standards, periodic evaluations.
T1: A consortium common agreement on specifications or commons principles for consortium involvement.
N1: That would meet the needs.
O1: Allowing scholars to discover each other via a common place would help.
T1: Does FaceBook suffice?
D1: Heard it doesn't, it wasn't made for scholars, wasn't made for that.
T1: Are existing arrays adequate?
N1: The kind of info. one can mine from FaceBook should be available, though.
R1: FaceBook isn't being used for academic uses.
T1: Institutional costs at enterprise level can be very high for products like FaceBook. It would require a lot of tweaking.
N1: But it's used for teaching because it can be the best way to communicate.
O1: We have the opportunity to enable ground-up ways of social contacts.
R1: Can use FaceBook without having your face on it. Lot of people feed RSF into FaceBook, and people can find them that way.
N1: Asking sexual orientation, in Facebook, isn't appropriate for our purposes, but if can take elements of it, it's valuable. In trying to support collaborative research, the people may not be at research orgs, but they need protected space. Shibboleth seemed to exclude various participants as not being in the(educational) proper realm.
O1: Have to have identity management in common tools, like editing wikis. There is a commercial identity provider that we use.
D1: What would really attract faculty? What would allow me to do things faster in a more attractive way?
T1: Don't have a high-level answer. We've tried to approach faculty around projects they work on and try to introduce them to digital alternatives. Learned you make little steps. Researchers want to waste little time in learning new tools.
N1: Interoperability can help solve some problems.
T1: Going back to digitization, how do we establish common formats across all this digitization and getting access to all these archives without having to travel all over the planet. And how to make them all interoperable.
T1: The way you get access to archives in Spain requires a letter vouching for you and if the archivist likes the look of you, then maybe they'll let you see some things. (T1: That could even happen in California.) It's a very different culture.
O1: The q. is can I get access in a way that works for my type of research. Don't know how that relates to Bamboo, though.
T1: Clearly need a foundation piece to get more resources (digital) available.
D1: So many things are resources we don't even know they're valuable yet. Trying to solve digitizing everything in this consortium won't work. What about the next layer, of the stuff that's being produced:
T1: ie. The standards of what's being produced.
N1: So much time is spent on things like licenses, access, standards. Have the consortium take care of the nasty stuff we don't want to worry about.
R1: The scanners don't want standards for economic reasons. Or a lawyer objects. Hard as individual projects, can't fight it, but as a large consortium can make a statement.
D1: Create swat teams around certain technical problems that people share? Natural language processing, GIS, et.al. are common problems that need support. Stanford has something like this.
N1: Great idea. Takes technology out of it.
D1: Would have to be some collaborative effort where people meet.
O1: Common issues, like data mining, algorithms are other examples of common problems.
D1 & O1: Take GIS , data viz, motion capture are all examples.
T1: NSF is supporting San Diego on issues like long-term trusted storage. Not sure it's a consortium topic.
N1: A2 said yesterday there's lots of talk about tools, but tools need to prove their usefulness. If Bamboo builds, provides tools, but how you judge them.
D1: Funding is key.
O1: I really like the idea of identify cross-cutting technologies to multiple disciplines.
D1: It may also apply to the sciences.

Issues:
Seeding innovation vs pooling resources
2. Balancing support of idiosyncratic practice vs lowest-common denominator practices
Bottom-up adoption vs. top-down imposition
4. Agreement on common principles/practices -make funding contingent on adherence
Using commercial tools/services without total dependence on them
Openness to interoperability with groups outside academia
Aggregating legal/economic power to influence standards/practice
"Swat teams" focused on specific domains, disciplines, practices... but networked together.
Summary of issues, possible areas of Bamboo focus: funding, social networking (scholars, public, projects), format compatibility, multimedia authoring, standards/best practices.

T1 supplemental comments:
1. Funding via private sector and encourage NEH to give better support, or IMLS.
2. Adoption of "Commons" principles w.i. the consortium as threshold for participation.
3. Focus on special collections & archives; categorical & systematic ways of collecting data
.end.

Back to top.

Group 1a - H

E1: Question on what is the nature of the services to be produced.
P1: lots of possibilities
E1: We need to reduce barriers to entry with experiments and new ideas integrating tech, like repositories, etc. Sees need for utility services that can foster this.
R1: Concerned that humanities scholars will have no clue where to start with utilities services. They do not know what to do with these and how to write glue code. Sees a need for helping them to get started.
P1: need a model for collaboration, as a result from bamboo.
R1: related S1's story about Word and Wiki.
N1: He is often concerned with lots of data, and the problems of gathering and managing this data. He is worried about tools that are only demo tools that work on small data sets, but do not scale, and do not help gather really large data sets.
E1: issues of getting critical mass, and gathering up community.
R2: Perhaps Bamboo should concentrate not on tech and widgets, but on the tools for collaboration: e.g., shared repositories, etc.
N1: spends a lot of time on data munging.
R1: format converters to make it easier to apply std. Tools
R2: also need archival and preservation formats and tools to convert data and results into those formats.
N1: Needs help in how to collect data in better formats and practices, to make it easier to manipulate.
R3: question about finding collections elsewhere, but can't get as digital?
N1: sort of. Often exist, but may just be images and need transcriptions.
R2: Digitization is a very common theme for them.
R3: advocates a lot for digitizing non-book materials, especially Goog and MSFT are doing so much in book space. Cal Bamboo help with this.
P1: troll issues?
R3 & R2: changing, as must expose or die.
N1: also a critical mass issue: as more folks do this, it becomes the norm. Others follow suit.
R2: Bamboo might have a place if could provide services that make it easier to digitize/transcribe materials.
R3: Yes! Faculty have data sets: how to preserve them.
R2: if Bamboo can be a collaborative space then can be useful they are describing MVP service.
E1: Also: issues around citation and referencing of datasets and other materials. There are layers of interaction around primary data/sources. Hard to represent the pedigree and citation trail of work around many sources. Would like to see new interesting models around citation around these sources. Would have to be thought leader to push new models and infrastructure.
P1: which of services from this am would be good:
R1/R2: services around data sets: munging tools, versioning, citation, etc.
N1: there are many old data sets around, dead or half-dead. Need tools to resuscitate these.
E1: ...and a lawyer to figure out ownership and permissions.
R1: often just get a screen scrape. Need better tools.
R2: moving from punch cards to something modern. Bamboo as a virtualization space for data sets and assoc. services.
R1: If can assume (as one does) that Bamboo output will be Web services, then have a good model.
P1: business model issues...
E1: need a capital campaign for sustaining collaborative services.
R3: Ithaka group that works on business model issues
E1: sustainability a constant problem for humanities.
R1: Creating a pool of humanities users who are savvy, but there is a huge pool of them that do not even have money for PCs.
R3: ARTstor and their work on authentication and IP management
R2: Must be transparent. Authentication is important, but hard to integrate many different institutions given all the different authentication models, and the rules needed within each repository.
E1: have translators to get data sets into their world. Generally have been helping collaboration on a project by project basis. Community contributes both primary data, and some info on schema mapping (they cannot do this themselves yet). Simple model in that just provide simple services with schema harmonization. Talked about Petra project and the emerging social models around that, as well as IP model (CC-BY use of data).
P1: Q about need for scalability consulting
E1: varies with project: some have IT staff, others hack, and some have little idea.
R2: a question of maturity in some cases, when it becomes clear that a resource takes too much time to sustain, but is important enough to merit attention. Thinks Bamboo needs to provide scalable services from the beginning.
E1: yes, like Amazon DB that scales up in an easy manner. Would like Cloud Data store.
R1 - Cyber infrastructure and cloud storage, etc.
P: to E1: would you have wanted a DB designer early on?
E1: yes, although did not know how to find someone when he started (not a Uni).
R2: need schema harmonization tools
E1: that would be nice. Right now is hard.
P1: getting people to agree on what a schema means is very hard, and may be not very meaningful.
R1: story of EAD development and requests for tons of outlier fields, etc., many of which are equivalent and parallel.

Back to top.

Group 1b - A

        - [ ] what might we do?
            - [ ] emerging
                - [ ] guides and models to follow
                - [ ] enrich metadata
            - [ ] existing
                - [ ] document practices, show goals
                - [ ] encourage experimentation
            - [ ] social network
                - [ ] academic organizing
                - [ ] smarter, anticipatory discussion forum
                - [ ] incentive? sense of play?
            - [ ] all adding up to "support a network of choices & critique"
                - [ ] a conversation you don't want to be left out of
                - [ ] find out about technical stuff
                - [ ] still need a cave -- avoid this stuff & still need critique

Back to top

Group 1b - B

•    Bridging gaps between disciplines is not always easy.  Therefore the Bamboo model should be described and shared so it can be replicated.  How were the exercises conceived and organized?
•    Build on the Minnesota report on scholarly practice at its institutions
•    Let's not reinvent wheels, however, a directory would be a start
•    Advocacy re: open access/interoperability
•    Advocacy re: changes to the tenure process
•    Advocacy re: digital [scholarship???]
•    What are the real issues?
•    Access to assets:  standards based repository that can be federated; aggregation of data for discovery & re-use
•    Roadmap/model for how to provide digital humanist tools, infrastructure
•    Replicate face-to-face meetings, including meetings in non-traditional places, at smaller institutions, with invitations extended to non-university organizations

What does it mean "to bamboo"?

•    Be an advocacy organization for ...
•    To enable...
•    Policy development
•    What about services-provision?
•    Will it be a platform rather than a services platform?  (Like CNI)
•    Let's not polarize sciences vs. humanities
•    Consult / be informed by digital work that has gone before, and to make it accessible

Three things proposal (a CNI model):

•    Convener
•    Advocate
•    Service-provider (or service-enabler or service-integration)

Back to top

Group 1b - C

What Bamboo ought to be in the future, and why? Three suggestions.
 - Free; for everyone, forever.
 - Be headed by Humanists - PhD, paid position
 - Be a repository and a resource, introduce tools, and take on publication (in conjunction with Project Ithaka)

Back to top

Group 1b - D

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

▼    2.    Exercise 7
    ▼    2.1.    Three recommendations for areas of work
    ▼    2.1.1.    Engagement of other partners
    •    2.1.1.1.    Importance of critical mass. Within our funding agency, we find that you need scale to benefit from your funding efforts. It needs to benefit large numbers. Many institutions at multiple levels.
    •    2.1.1.2.    Bring together people who haven't worked together before
    •    2.1.1.3.    Are we networking researchers, or research resources -- or both?
    ▼    2.1.2.    What is "it"?
    ▼    2.1.2.1.    In some ways Bamboo is a big test to discover similarities.
    •    2.1.2.1.1.    Try to form a small committee working on the problem. Go out and find answers to this problem. Get an idea of whom to speak with, whom to be contacting.
    •    2.1.2.2.    Is it that there's a lack of density, lack of comprehension of what it says it is? Is the nominal definition so abstract that we don't know what it refers to?
    ▼    2.1.2.3.    Product or process? Build something, or discovery and mapping?
    •    2.1.2.3.1.    Is it glue as much as tools?
    •    2.1.2.3.2.    It's a mistake to be too specific at this stage, but it does mean that there's an uncertainty.
    •    2.1.2.3.3.    Much talk about process, but funder talks about widgets and product.
    ▼    2.1.2.4.    2.5 days of workshop focuses on asking what we do as academic researchers and unpacking that.
    •    2.1.2.4.1.    You need to watch people, spend time observing.
    •    2.1.2.4.2.    What we do is not always the same as what we say we do.
    •    2.1.2.4.3.    If your discovery is limited to this approach, the methodology is flawed.
    •    2.1.2.5.    More on getting institutional buy-in, collaboration. Less on generating tools. Hear from more researchers. Direct and focus should be the next stage. To get anywhere, planning needs to go rather further than 18 months. Yields more concrete outcome.
    •    2.1.2.6.    Development by demonstration is a very convinving way to get people to sign on.
    •    2.1.2.7.    Asking people what technology is going to do for you, often the answer is "nothing."
    •    2.1.2.8.    Never a bad time to ask people about their working practices, what they're doing. Never a bad time to get people talking.
    •    2.1.2.9.    But is there something you could be doing today that you could/couldn't have been doing yesterday? Innovation analysis is hard.
    •    2.1.2.10.    Get a critical demonstrator to show what you can do; this will be a direct way to encourage participants.
    •    2.1.2.11.    But you have to be very clear about what you want to achieve, and the methodology for identifying what it is.
    •    2.1.2.12.    You can spend time laboring over the right approach, or you can get something out flawed in relatively short time, and gain observers/demonstrators/users quickly. There is benefit in maintaining both approaches.
    ▼    2.1.3.    Sustainability: must be something to contribute, and something to receive from the Bamboo process.
    •    2.1.3.1.    Like funding agency and archives: get a sense of tools and what humanists can use. Not necessarily conventional tools, either: genome tools, etc. are fair game.
    •    2.1.3.2.    Which of these tools should we guarantee the sustainability of?
    •    2.1.3.3.    Peer review.
    •    2.1.3.4.    Tools all have users, or they're not very interesting.
    •    2.1.3.5.    G7: critical thing with our tools is we evaluated them all, some someone is speaking to their efficacy.  There needs to be some systematic survey of tools, need to be prepared to say why it exists and why something else does not.  Efforts to do registries and lists become quickly boring unless you do the unkind thing of giving well-reasoned arguments for them.
    •    2.1.3.6.    Our funding comes from community as much as for the community. We must ask our committee, which is our community.
    ▼    2.1.3.7.    With materials in parallel format, people cite the print format more than the electronic format, because it's perceived as "better". This compromised willingness to release in electronic or new form. Need to address citation methodology.
    •    2.1.3.7.1.    This goes to sustainability: one of the reasons given not to cite e-resources is that you can't guarantee that it will still be there.
    ▼    2.1.3.8.    Institutional buy-in. You really need this in order to gain sustainability. If you identify your portfolio of tools, you can present these to other institutions, get their buy-in, and better ensure sustainability of those tools, which helps gain buy-in and more tools.
    •    2.1.3.8.1.    Economy of scale. [Link back to critical mass]
    •    2.1.3.9.    Needs to be some way for a whole range of people to sign on. Collaboration structures. Reduce free rider problem, reduce resentment between elite institutions and lower ones.
    ▼    2.1.4.    Think also about the wetware. Social groups.
    •    2.1.4.1.    Periodical, predictable meetings have been done very well by a number of technical organizations (IEEE, SIGGRAPH, ACM); also legal.
    •    2.1.4.2.    Emphasis on frequency and periodicity: you know when and where you can go to learn about projects.
    •    2.1.4.3.    Organizational development will be critical.
    •    2.1.5.    There must be some body that makes a decision about tools, and sustainability flows from that. Demonstrable utility. cf. the "organizational circle."
    •    2.1.6.    Is value added by the community of users?
    ▼    2.1.7.    Two essential components:
    •    2.1.7.1.    Get the right set of tools, requiring rigorous selectivity
    ▼    2.1.7.2.    Get an agree-upon set of meetings with decided-upon criteria.
    •    2.1.7.2.1.    Modest fee, so that people take it seriously?
    •    2.1.7.2.2.    Graduate students?
    •    2.1.7.2.3.    Corporate sponsorship?
    •    2.1.7.2.4.    Many models.
    ▼    2.2.    How to engage non-US partners?
    •    2.2.1.    To get involved internationally, getting major research institutions together -- nobody here from major research institutions.
    ▼    2.2.2.    Is there some ground to be covered before we qualify as "engaged"?
    •    2.2.2.1.    If asking institutions to engage in greater depth than three days' time (which is a lot), need to be more specific.
    •    2.2.2.2.    What would be good is to establish a profile such that people are aware that Bamboo is happening, even if not involved at a personal level.
    •    2.2.2.3.    Closer engagement with smaller number of institutions who want to play at a more developed level.
    •    2.2.2.4.    Awareness of opinion leaders and shapers. Not always easy to characterize who falls into that bin, but questions to judge whether we've touched all the places where opinions are shaped. Not always funding agencies.
    •    2.2.2.5.    Understand research culture of each country: not always the same.

Back to top

Group 1c - B

•    What should Bamboo be? Which of the efforts discussed this morning would be best supported by a consortial effort? - Facilitating
o    One principle focus of workshop - What would be an important focus of Bamboo so it can be of value to European efforts in similar projects?

•    Arts and humanities are not as separate as they often seem to be.  Like to see potential for practice-based learning as a result, facilitated by Bamboo.  Things as disparate as dance to martial arts to music.  Virtual master classes, or something similar - F11
o    Perhaps not best to generalize because in some places these are indeed separate (Berkeley for instance) - Facilitating
o    Perhaps a problem of translation, because in other countries/different institutions, these are different.  Often funding regimes are dictated by these differences - F13
o    Different cultures of handling differences between arts/humanities/sciences - F1
•    Graduate training, though possibly outside the scope of Bamboo.  Or training for an older generation?  Or early career researchers? - F13
o    We don't know Bamboo's scope - Facilitating
•    Asked by colleagues to bring up sort of training?  Training to use a tool isn't necessarily useful, so perhaps training to understand relevant technologies - F12
o    Training of transferable skills and knowledge
•    To establish a lookup/portal to find tools and services, to be part of a network of repositories of services internationally - F1
o    Many tools are re-invented, and we would profit more by contributing internationally to a community of services.
o    Mixture of documentation
o    Emphasizing Bamboo as a consortial effort, instead of "you" making a tool - Facilitating
o    Can be as simple as a wiki that's part of Bamboo - F16
o    Not just a Google for tools, but also some sort of evaluation already done by scholars, technologists and information scientists - Facilitating
o    There are concrete issues for the location of certain tools that can complicate this - F17
o    Intute - Distributed service in the UK that catalogs web pages and online presences for tools and services - F12
•    Earlier version on Intute (Humble) was a good tool, but the scale was too small - F1
•    Better of this was a social tool, so we aren't relying on a small editorial board.
•    Advantage of board is that things are cataloged to the same standards, but it's admittedly a disadvantage that it's not social enough.  Though suggestions are taken into consideration - F12
•    Presumably, Intute could be augmented to add a forum or sort of social tool - F7
•    Nothing to stop people using existing social tools to do that - F12
•    May be more difficult to find that type of community - F7
•    Other ideas? Perhaps taking off of magic wand ideas- Facilitating
•    Time - F13
o    Maybe that's the magic bullet, or the magical side of this - just making things easier. 
o    Other than making the world easier, how could we specify? - Facilitating
o    Perhaps a sort of J-Stor for tools? - F13
o    Can Bamboo help existing open source projects have pedagogical (educative) extensions? - F16
•    Bamboo can finance development pedagogical aspects of existing tools, or advocate that tool makers include pedagogical aspects.
o    TEI has done this by encouraging commercial tools to do exactly this. - F12
•    Commercial developers (Oxygen, as an example) are often happy, or proud that academic institutions use their tools.
•    If Bamboo can encourage other projects along this line with other tools - F16
•    True, but open-source software isn't free.  Often cheaper for programmers elsewhere to write the software which is cheaper model for software - F12
•    We are dependent on these tools, so they need to be open-source and in our hands - F1
•    We rely on these tools for projects without infrastructure to build on.  So, perhaps building a new infrastructure that is open-source. 
•    We are living in different time frames than commercial developers.
•    Can tools built to common standards coffer a compromise between commercial and open-source? - Facilitating
•    Always an investment - no way to de-couple tools from standards in an effective way - F1
o    True, sometimes the interface of certain tools require training that are beyond the scope of a projects - F12
o    Return to a J-Stor for tools - F1
•    A company like Oxygen has a better record for producing tools that are useful and sustainable, as opposed to Digital Humanitites Project - F12
•     Should be careful not to be tied into particular commercial software.
•    We haven't got a good track record for building useful open-source tools
•    But people have been building tools for themselves - F1
•    We have to explore possibility of approaching open-source developers to make these tools more widely available and easier to use.
•    If commercial activity stops at some point, it is important so that the base is available for open-source development - F7
•    Away from tools, is there something else that Bamboo ought to focus on? - Facilitating
•    Deliver something like a virtual environment allowing for the storage of texts under a persistent URL that is permanent and sustainable? - F1
o    Reliable document storage, in a simple, stable and persistent space.
•    Should not lose sight of social benefit, which is the added value of a consortium - F13
o    Is there something particular about the role of Bamboo in this social network, as opposed to interdisciplinary societies that already exist? - Facilitating
o    Existing societies don't necessarily focus on the correct things - F13
•    Distinctiveness of Bamboo is the focus on the intellectual end which is inseparable from the technical aspects of the next generation of humanities.
•    These organizations, like Digital Humanities, that exist - F16
•    Yes, but there is something to the social aspect that is different - F13
•    Difference in Bamboo is the way in which one is forced to engage it as an institutional team, whereas others can be engaged as an institution - F12
o    Interesting catalyst at Oxford, forcing people to talk about these issues with others whom they haven't discussed these issues before.
o    Extreme useful for these discussions to happen between institutions - F13
•    These conversations are difficult to incite from within institutions, so what's needed as a catalyst can be called together by an exterior organization like Bamboo.
•    Might think of Bamboo as a catalyst for increased intra- and inter-institutional dialogues.
•    Must be dialogues with Dariah and the like - F1
•    Great sense that this project needs to engage others, since they may not be available to institutions in the same way.
•    Bamboo can be a face for the US to bring these collaborations to an international network - F1
•    Last call for anything substantively different, and then choose three things to share. - Facilitating
•    Demonstrator tools and research projects should be the purview of Bamboo - F12
o    Novel forms of research can be done with pre-existing tools.
o    Lots of people demonstrating tools without showing how they are applied in research.  Important to demonstrate the place for these tools in research
•    Using technologies to enable methodologies. - Facilitating
•    Third kind of catalytic effect - Get institutions willing to contribute resources on a matching level - F13
•    Focus on how one gets tools to work together - F7
o    Interrelation/integration/interoperability of all tools
o    Workshop has identified this as a major problem, so it must be addressed. - F12
•    Interoperability of not only tools, but data sets.
•    This is desirable, but how Bamboo would do this is not clear.  Must establish standards and guidelines
•    Might Bamboo stand as a place for consortial decision making on standards for international collaboration with Dariah, for instance? - F12
•    Scientists are present at discussions of international standards, but humanists aren't.  So this can be a place for this. - F16
o    Right, TEI serves this function, but only for one subset of humanities scholars (really geeky) - F12
•    Choosing three things Bamboo should focus on - Facilitating
•    Tool and service discovery; Consortial network; Interoperability - F1
•    Consortial network; Demonstrate novel research; Interoperability - F12
o    Mention discussion of Arts/Humanities/Sciences as sort of discussion that should happen in consortial effort - F11
•    Tool and Service Discovery to be included with Interoperability - F12
o    Interoperable Tool and Service Discovery
•    Interoperability must be there since we've discussed it for three days - F13 and F14
o    A topic on so many levels - F1
•    Find out where connections are between other EU initiatives. Need to know what other wheel exists if we might be re-inventing it - F14
o    Part of consortial network - F1
•    Interoperability/Tool discovery - Facilitating
•    Dissemination and Training - F13

Back to top

Group 1c - C

- Main task of Bamboo has to take on is seriously surveying users to find out what the user requirements are
    - Are well-resourced, but large/small software projects to a high proportion fail due to inadequate user engagement
    - We're talking about what students are doing, but that's our impressions
    -We're a self-selecting bunch of people with an interest in these questions already
- A lot of info that humanities researchers are interested in isn't print information - increasingly relying on broadcast info, some is stored, some isn't
    - Scale of amount of data that humanities researchers may be looking to get to grips with when we look beyond print media is staggering
    - Want to remind everyone that some of the scale of what we're up against is ... problems we have in dealing with storage/access to print media are miniscule compared to other media
- Have to be common standards between Britain/Europe/US
-You don't have to start w/ universal agreement on standards to have something of value
    -If there's some good reason for people to come together, standards will emerge
    - Community engagement is right on, but is it getting at the right community?
- Need clear bottom-line benefits for my specific project that we can't do w/ in-house stuff
- Several issues - 1) Lots of groups like ours that independently develop various tools; if that process is something you could buy into where other projects are creating those systems, where you could use it with minimal effort
    -There's a way where we already do it, but it's more ad hoc
    -There's enough available already in one way or another; it'd have to show something quite specific and beneficial
- Google can get a million books, so you can focus on things Google won't do; but they won't give it to you for free
- A volume of massive amounts of data: how do you look at that, get a grip on it, free it up so you can analyze it in a way that's valuable
- It's agreeing on common practices that will facilitate other zappy things later
- People most passionate about digitizing shouldn't have to be involved in the technology to distribute it when its' done - no sustainable incentives to do right thing with those resources
- Network effect - who wants the only telephone in the world?
- For every tool developed, should be 3 institutions capable to develop
   -For every tool Bamboo might develop, need 3 scholars in different institutions who've contributed, believe has value, etc
- Not issue of whether you need Bamboo, but whether it's enough of a priority
- Various strands - you can't digitize everything
    -But you can get people in touch w/ the state of play: what's available, who's doing what
    - It's a hybrid working environment. You work with what you've got, the value of this to me would be the communication and a place you can go or can come to you, on your homepage, to see what's going on
    - Form a nice synergy in the longer term; but how you balance in the early days is a problem
- Marginal benefit - won't have long tail because funders get exhausted, passion only fills in a little gap
-In terms of European Commission - lots of initiatives funded through Europe
    -Models that work in the UK don't necessarily work in US or elsewhere
    -Notion of reinvention has to be understood w/ great deal of nuance
    -Want to reuse technology/resources where you can, but sometimes these have to be models that engage with each other, rather than comprehensive
- Humanities would benefit from social networking things, but humanities requirement for that is any different from anyone else's

Back to top.

Group 1d - A

10 - What should Bamboo be/become?

4 - after reading the Bamboo proposal, the first half didn't align with the second half in terms of thinking. First half, open ended; second half, top down. Bamboo should enlist as many people as possible. The Funnel should be upside-down.

10 - all open source projects (the Apache work) still has a tree structure. Bamboo needs a low barrier for entry. Letting those that want to play, play.

4 - a leaderless community will not get the job done

2 - something in supercomputing/grand challenge

9 - a demonstration of project. Pick a data rich project for which computing would be absolutely necessary. It would have wide reaching impact on many different campuses and communities.

4 - modify that idea it not be a central database. It could be distributed across many institutions.

7 - needs to be an aggregation, using resources for aggregation.

4 - few people understand what others are doing

9 - one idea being pedagogical in focus

7 - brining up the technology literacy of faculty

3 - seamless access to the technology to quickly get into the heart of the research. Easy usable tooling and support. A fertile playground to improve the research cycle.

4 - younger scholars are open to things across boundaries/disciplines. They are much more presentational

2 - issues related to scale

6 - we need to do more than just building something; actual tools that will advance scholarship at work

9 - Bamboo has to have a clearing house function.

7 - a CV database that support matchmaking of people and work

10 - push technology

7 - creating a virtual think tank that stays up on top of the issues and information to help the research and the scholarship.

5 - no one group can do everything

10 - process for continual improvement, not a project with a specific end

Top three:

9 - the clearing house idea is the most important idea. expansive

4 - the virtual think tank. Helps with focus. Folding structure and governance into the two.

5 - the two ideas that come together to cultivate the next generation of researchers and scholars.

6 -- A community of practice, where members of the community can contribute

2 - cross cutting two orthogonal communities of practice: the technological CoP and humanities CoP

10 - the large scale demonstration. Identify particular exemplars that will illustrate for the large community how the work of Bamboo can (or cannot) benefit the field. Fail early and fail often.

11 - the need for policy and advocacy

2 - the academic norms pushes toward the elimination for the distinction between academy and corporate. For example, what is academic use versus personal use? Academic freedom act of 1915. Academic freedoms.
 

Back to top.

Group 1d - B

A1: If you survey all these institutions who participated, it would be odd to privilege that group.   Invest some effort in going thru professional societies and attempt to build some short-term process,
A2:  Will be an open process. MLA has attended. Open and transparent
A3: Want it to be open but remember that these organizations have their own initiatives. Bamboo can form outside of the ecosystem and invade it and transform, but this is the group that has the interest - the core.
A4:  Social dynamics - digital communities - systolic/diastolic defines Internet - allows communities to come together and fragment. This happens in disciplines and departments. Best we can do - piping - providing connections around and within these communities.
A5:  Bamboo lead to development of discovery of software - humanists can get access and know about software. It's the Bamboo seal of approval.
A6:  We need a place to publish and maintain software. Software that is 20 yrs old and we maintain it. How do you take this off of our office and put it somewhere? Bamboo is a place is not just a repository but maintains the services over the time. A capital investment - what needs to change or be rebuilt - we give it to you to take care of. That's a gap - knowledge bases that won't coalesce. We need this infrastructure separate from scholar.
A7: Isn't a business model. What motivated libraries to do their jobs - competitiveness and showing off. Libraries at Illinois in '60s bought everything, than Harvard and Yale had to get ahead of that. In a collaborative environment doesn't work that way. This could be prestigious, and might bring some money. How to convert this sense and maintain it?
A3:  Analogies - what is Bamboo like and not like? Is it like Gnu? That level: free, input/output, benchmodel, publication umbrella like Dig(question) Humanities Quarterly. Look at where those things going and which are not working well.
A6:  Motivation is an important point. Strategically huge shift from libraries inputting data to institutions investing in what they produce. Investment goes to your people having highest impact possible. Get visibility, we splash up on screens (Tufts). Conservative environment, other places active. I see Bamboo's niche in the space between Googles and Facebooks, building specialized services; could be knowledge bases, domain/discipline specific services.
A7:  Some way institution can buy in.
A5:  Should Bamboo be something that will require a body to sustain; a paid staff. Or should it be a set of papers and reports?
A2: What does community want?
A7:  What's not being done by someone else. Community building being done, there are publishers trying to work in the realm.
A3:  In terms of repositories, institutions recognize these are their assets and might not want to hand them over. Notion of substrate of interoperable services that could guide to...
A7:  Institution would participate by plugging in, not giving it to Bamboo.
A5:  I want to build interfaces and a URL. Someone needs to maintain over time. I'd love for someone to maintain. I just want URL and services as a humanist and researchers. Bamboo could be institutional framework and define URLs look and access. Could be set of repositories, academic cloud.
A7: Services will evolve. Build services that are modular. Core code is housed and maintained at institution,
A3:  Maintenance is hard, it's expensive. Organizations that establish boundaries leave behind a legacy code base, someone has to maintain. What's the reward system? Can Bamboo provide something in that direction?
A5:  Facebook apps - becomes place you go to access apps. Won't work long term. Think it won't work for Facebook too. JSTOR or ARTSTOR model.
A3:  Or is it Gnu?   Jstor and artstor are subscription based; GNU open source sustained by community and you download.
A4:  Yochai Benkler says don't need a business model. Can Bamboo provide something where the assets and uses are exposed so that people are invested in this? Nascent user community who can run with something.
A8:  Steven Weber, economist, wrote that there is an underlying structure around which a community forms. Bamboo could serve as that deeper structure. It's not visible and it's not sexy and not appealing to fund.
A6:  2nd way to pay - libraries maintain and that's the business model. The other is that no one talked about how these open source work. In the end 10 or 20 people saying it's impt, it's social networking, it's speech act, letter writing.
A7:  If you have a cost to maintain at 1 institution, difficult for another institution to pony up money.
A6:  Exposure we provide pays for it. Would not charge subscription.
A2:  What are core recommendations?  Have to build in the incentive because maintenance is not sexy. Need 3 recommendations to submit.
A4:  Cloud computing, the academic cloud, as opposed to singular network or repository makes sense. Network rather than creating from scratch.
A5:  Essense of cloud computing is using services over the web and you don't know where it comes from, might be your own institution but you don't know. Mashups are remarkable from URLs all over the place.
A3:  The cloud returns things in different formats.
A7:  Bamboo knit together these services for humanists.
A5: Not a Wiki model, has to be some buy-in by some institution.
A7:  Bamboo gives credibility, some permanence.
A3:  A clearinghouse, standards, and dissemination.
A5:  XML tells you commitment to that service and then u decide whether to use. Can be experimental - will tell you not to use for your dissertation, can't support it.
A6:  That is what we need - someone to maintain it. Mellon's investment may be capital to take things that run into something sustainable.
A7:  And issue of how Bamboo gets some motivation, some reward. Scholars would love to see, but is there buy in for institutions.
A6: Library examples - alternate business models
A9:  Enrollments mean money, alumni contributions. Issue of sustainability reminds of A6's call for a revival of time-honored tradition of production of tools (dictionaries, etc) which have fallen away. Sustainability will require that humanities professionals come to legitimize w these tools. Have to thus engage w/ professional societies. Don't want to brand ourselves as subversive. Can work to change these societies. (MLA)
A6:  Perception that it's a closed clique. Deadly in classics, professional organization is closed system, we function despite organization.
A3:  Seems we don't want to be held hostage to those organizations. MLA has its own business model that constrains the way they think. If Bamboo shows it's coming out of their membership, they'll be open but can't do from within. direction.
A5:  Don't want Bamboo to compete with their space, has to be complementary. Avoid perception that they are competing for funds.
A7:  If we see tool building as a form of scholarship, in addition to publication. Not destroying current system.
A2:  Knitting together w/standards involved, and complementary.

Summary

Want Bamboo not to compete with professional societies, should be complementary. Knitting together, a clearinghouse, but ultimately focused on solving stability problem to allow for investment by institutions. One aspect of stability was technology stability: develop a cloud so users don't worry about protocol, accessible thru browsers, sustainability with Bamboo taking over this messy job. Another kind of stability is intellectual stability by providing ... and financial stability, to facilitate ways to pay for this. Creating incentives for individuals and institutions by making it appealing to young faculty members.
 

Back to top.

Group 1d - C

B1    Better sharing of information of projects we're already working on.  A lot of us are reproducing each others efforts

B2    agree that's very important

B3    create a social networking environment to facilitate that sharing

B1    NYU is developing a portal to support re-useable technology with some social networking site to bring researchers together.  Want to extend that to other institutions

B3    we're doing something for H-Net.org  We already have 180,000 subscribers.

B2    want to build on the strength of bamboo as a consortium.  Use bamboo to find out about these things.  Need a place to be the umbrella

B4    explicit community building.  Have to have key people involved to provide the critical center.  There's a field of study called "community theory."   Jame Hilton at UVA is studying this.  Have the steward of the community, the information person, and the one who brings new people in.  then you get "emergent behaviors."

B3    SWAP at wide.msu.edu   another   "SWAP is a new digital product developed in 2007 by the WIDE Research Center at Michigan State University. SWAP stands for Social Writing Application Platform. SWAP is a set of modular web services, based on social networking principles, that can be combined in various configurations to assist a wide variety of users, including teachers and students"

B5    Bamboo could provide guidelines about how to update the review and tenure process

B2    dean's office & provost are not the levels to apply this information.  Tenure done in the disciplines

B3    bamboo could provide forum for review

B2    Bamboo could be a clearing house for what's happening, and what's happened.   A place to get knowledgeable people who can review work.  A specialty and competence space.  Bamboo could be a visible enough organization to influence promotion guidelines

B7    all the expertise is not located at Universities, esp. in Europe.  Other institutes and academies can be involved

B2    the community can be expanded by including more types of institutions.  E.g. pixar  or specialty libraries; talk to google

B6    http://digitalhumanities.org/centernet/  is a directory listing

B4    should be pushing some standards for tool building.  Develop the infrastructure for the humanities that lets people build durable projects.  Need good level of abstractions, before we jump on protocols.  Principals.  Standards, but at a pretty high level of shared assumptions.  That will facilitate interoperability.

B1    interoperability is the key word.  Without the standards, you build projects that stand alone

B4    the durability of data often gets left out.  Application designer has to account for the durability of the information.  It's all about putting repositories under everything.   It's about packaging in a way that's abstract enough from the technologies you're using at the moment.

B2    the abstractions have to evolve.  The way the data is stored affects how the information is used.

B4    but the abstractions should evolve at a slower rate than the technology

B8    what we have so far:
1.    Community building
2.    knowledgebase of specialties and competencies
3.    standards
4.    including non-traditional groups in the consortium

B9    what's the relation between Bamboo and NDIIPP http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/   ?  they are preserving cultural heritage information

B6    Also,  "preserving creative America." they are doing some things that Bamboo should not have to start over on.  The preservation job is bigger than the library of congress can take on; they want to get others involved in the preservation effort.

B6    suggest a deliverable for bamboo... If people are providing web services according to standards, distinguish between reliable services that you can build on vs other of short term projects or things under development.  EG  jstor   or google maps
Things you can build on.  Provide a tools registry which lets you know which are "production" and how to use them.  Registry itself is a service; not simply a directory.   Provide formally defined inputs and outputs.  A "mashup registry service"  readable by human beings, but also by software

B2    would be nice if Bamboo would pick a couple of projects as examples; but should be small and short term.  Not the mountain that gave birth to a mouse.  Eg Pietro Coursey at Oxford project about Monmartre.  Did it by himself; it's great but its not supported, not interoperable, not durable.

B3    bamboo could identify projects that need to be rescued

B6    different example,  have a grant to fund someone with a large amount of data to allow them to move that data into an open environment.  Provide funding for the transformation.  Eg Perseus

B1    but that should be preceded by the developing the abstractions, so that this transformation would become an exemplar of the process

B6    it would be an iterative process

B10    eg ethnomusicology at Columbia

B4    uses Fedora

B8    summarize

1.    Community building
2.    knowledgebase of specialties and competencies.  People finding people
3.    home for standards, abstractions, design principals
4.    registry of established production tools
5.    including non-traditional groups in the consortium
6.    feature (or fund?)  proof concept projects

finalists
1.    Community building
2.    home for standards, abstractions, design principals
feature (or fund?)  proof concept projects
 

Back to top.

Group 1d - D

C1 Avoid reinventing the wheel, see what works/doesn't, what helps researchers
-Maybe it could establish a central registry of information about applications of technology to humanities research
-Would also have to create a standardized controlled vocabulary for creating such a database
C2: Also a historical mechanism? There's so much out there, not everyone knows about it, how about centrally archiving various projects that were attempted also with a recording of how well they fared, why/why not?
-That involves an awful lot of interpretation
C1 It could be layered; first, identify what has been done; some kind of description; contacts, URL's; layered with added things like outcome assessments, etc.

C3 What are the big picture things?
C4: I like the idea that there would be research that'd help someone in one space understand how someone in a different place got there
-Make the world seem smaller, reduce bridges between cultures
C3 Goal of translating scholarship between languages?
C4: That's one way, would meet that goal in helping broader range of scholars access very different corpuses of scholarships
-Help cultures get a little closer rather than further apart
-Any project that did that would be cool to be under the umbrella of Bamboo

C5: Ought to be a way to recognize authority across different people
-"What do I know about this person?"
-Technical challenge to support it, but also conceptual work to figure out how what constitutes authority, how do you recognize it?
C3 "Expertise" sense of authority
C6: Bibliographic authority (authoritative headings, etc) is a related type of authority
C5: Authority exists in a domain
C7: How to promote institutional support - Bamboo can't be a credentialing group in specific disciplines
-Can facilitate, but can't do it
C8: What do you mean by not being credentialing authority? Peer-review journal is one kind of that authority. Any registry with a ranking has some form of it
C7: Bamboo can't get into specific disciplines.
C3 Bamboo can't confer authority, but recognize it.
C7: Change has to come from ground-up for disciplines to evolve.
C5: A schema you'd have to create to support how you specify authority.

C8: Bamboo should be a "trading zone" (Peter Galison) - where people from disciplines come together and collaborate.
-When tribes come together, there are neutral trading zones where you can exchange regardless of your local context
-Creation of a local dialect so people can communicate, our pidgin language could be common tools/standards but also a way to describe work; certain conventions on how trade can happen (standards for data exchange, etc.)
C4: Humanities research allows one person to understand another.
C8: So, how's that different from the web? What do we gain by adding a layer of abstraction on top of the standards and protocols? What do we need to do here related to other standards-setting processes?
-Web as set of protocols for moving data from one place to another (http, ftp, etc., in addition to various emerging things like microformats, markup)
-My framework is Zotero; there's various pieces coming from different places; Bamboo feels like a top-down approach, and I see bottom-up things happening; how are they going to interact?

C2: Establishing a central registry of digital humanists (like Facebook) that's part of this space of enabling scholarship and discovering others' work
C8: Rather than Facebook, a LinkedIn (more professional)
C9: There's already a place, Plaxo, LinkedIn, Enchanted Broccoli (Apple initiative for shared file space)
C6: Facebook/LinkedIn concept could help with discovering what's in process, who has what skills, that could spark new relationships
C2: Names and contacts from registry of projects could be linked to user profiles
C1 A way to help digital humanists find each other - how many people say to themselves "I'm a digital humanist"
-Is the fact that they use digital technology key to what they're doing, or are they humanists, and they're in a particular thing, and the digital is a modus operandi
C3 Maybe it wouldn't be so much about introspection about identity, but "I'm a humanist, this has value to me, I'll jump into it."
C2: "Digital humanities" is going to be the future, it'll be assumed after a while
-I often identify myself that way because it's still relatively new; that'll fall by the wayside in a few years

C6: I prefer the "trading zone" to "clearinghouse"
-Facebook/LinkedIn is an attribute of this trading zone
C9: Should be known.
-If you do it, and a majority of people don't know it, it's not very worthwhile. People know Sakai, Moodle, some basic things.
C3 Bamboo needs to pay fundamental attention to publicizing what it does
C7: You have to be aware of the brand.

C10: Is Bamboo invisible? There's Bamboo-aware, some data that flows, successful if people know to do that with their stuff, but is it a conduit? A mode?
-Should have some data architect types to assist, go further than a local project

C9: Like new research librarians?
C6: That's what I do; new generation of humanists and librarians
-Other generations with varying levels of understanding what technologies can do
-Intrigued when they learn about them, but also a little frightened
-I play the role "Just between you and me, I'm not comfortable with this, but I think it'd help me do that work."
-Can Bamboo provide hand-holding, cheerleading, human functions.
C3 In terms of what a consortial project can do, what's there?
C11: Through its demonstrator projects, it could have collaboration of library/IT/scholars to go in directions they couldn't before
-Raise awareness of this new kind of collaboration
-Collaborations previously around communities of researchers; now, a researcher plus someone with a different kind of expertise
-In humanities, researchers tend to work by themselves; their colleagues are doing something slightly different, each needs expertise to help them over boundaries

C2: How could Bamboo support people who are trying to help faculty push beyond their personal limitations?
-Friendly documentation about various technologies? Links to examples of what's been done, suggest what other people at your institution could help you out.
C6: Idea of mentoring, in a different direction (younger people > older people)
C2: At our institution, we produce documentation that shows possible working models, what the relation trajectory could be between researcher and IT
-Maybe too specific for Bamboo, but something similar?
-As simple as a glossary
C6: Provide these opportunities for mentoring, not just in our institution but another institution too - fabric for connecting people across universities
C2: We have a substantial archive of recorded experiences, workshops, etc. and we're looking at other groups doing the same kind of processes to see how they're doing it - we've changed processes because of it

C4: A Facebook for databases and objects, so they can "friend" each other

C11: International infrastructure that provides longevity
-All individual databases and products; what will happen to them in the future?
-Bamboo could investigate necessary infrastructure to curate it
-Like what national libraries took on to preserve print record, then translate it to the digital world
C7: Not every institution can provide these services, so how can Bamboo facilitate consortial organizations or just do it so individual institutions can focus on just local services
C1 Promoting and advocating, not taking it on itself
C11: Bamboo could come up with the model and the shape of it

C2: Enormous, centralized, infrastructurally complex thing; we need to consider built-in flexibility to change and evolve
-Our current issues might not be relevant in a few years
-It shouldn't turn into something as monolithic as MLA
C6: Centralization is a slippery thing; many centralized resources have failed or become hugely unwieldy
-Centralized access? Centralized networking? Not resource itself
-Aggregation, but there's problems with it too (though they are more flexible)
C2: Awareness of broad kind of issues of digital humanities; these will change over time; self-reflexive
C6: Concept of "Bamboo" as a metaphor - it can be a textile or a floor

C3 Picking three things to report back to the group
C6: "Trading zone" concept (widely agreed upon)
-A lot of this fits under that idea
C9: Like going to a market, and there's people there with crap and people who are real artisans
-No sign saying "crap" vs. "really good"
-You have to be able to realize what's crap; what's crap to one person is gold to another
-Maybe there doesn't have to be a focus on expertise > the good wins out

C11: Recognizing authority and expertise? (a little less widely agreed upon)
-Lots of thing in regard to tenure; value of digital outcomes
C7: Sharing of knowledge + how do you validate and promote
C6: Authority in one area isn't one in another
C2: "Rate this project" > corruption and bribery?
C3: Is authority antithetical to trading zone?
C8: Should we reframe this to make it more tangible?
C3 For the actionable thing, "be the entity that figures out the mechanisms used to confer authority on an object - who, how, where, how do you find it"
C11: In the print world, funding bodies recognize journal articles/papers/books; products of digital world don't have that same standing
C7: Just because Bamboo recognizes some credentials doesn't mean that Bamboo has the credibility within specific communities. Where can/can't it?
C11: Promoting and advocacy.
C7: In some communities, "if Bamboo says it's ok, it must be ok"
C2: Bamboo remains the reporter
C5: I'm working on a project with an authoritative, curated repository that they want to expose in a web 2.0 way
-"We want people to comment, but we have to check them first" > paradigm collision; need a way of satisfying both sides of that
C10: Trust is at the top of the stack.
C9: When Impressionists first had their exhibit, they were out of the painting guidelines, totally removed from any kind of authority/expertise at that time
-How do you make Bamboo let people do stuff that a normal authority/expertise area would stand in the way of

C5: "We're going to become an entity amid other entities" - we want it recognized, but not supplant others (not "rushing headlong into 1998")
-Recognizing that Bamboo is building on successes (and failures) of past efforts
C9: Invisible substrate question? Thing or supporter of things?
C5: Risk of becoming like the MLA - building up infrastructure; I wasn't thinking it'd develop that way, I was hoping it'd be more lightweight, but it could easily go that way; what's to stop it if we don't? We have to identify it to stop it.
C7: Organizations have to recognize when they're no longer useful.
C3 A slogan not widely advertised among project staff; if we have a slogan, "Borrow and they will come."
C10: I was reading in the proposal that it's a series of services.
C3 The proposal idea was the "new" paradigm for building technology - wedding cake vs. triangle
-Use interoperability and reusability provided by things like web services to compose what you need out of building blocks made by different parties
 

Back to top.

Group 1d - E

D1: transition assistance: refactoring, retrofitting, rehosting of datasets or processes to de-silo them.

D2: why bamboo?

D1: "forest of interoperation".  silos, inability of owners or custodians to open them for interoperation is a serious roadblock.

D3: focus on making existing tools more usable

D1: emphasize lightweight interfaces rather than complex protocols of access

D3: assume maintenance of silos  - mashups, modules.  example of drupal.  "come in at version 6"

D4: additionally, a non-technical approach.  form a community, consortium. changing field, always new challenges.  gov't, institutions, laws...

D2: where do those discussions take place now?  not aware of a wiki or a social network for "our community"

D4: only thing which comes close is Haystack.  not the same thing but provides a context for coming together.

D1: perception that if you are not a member of haystack you are a passive observer.

D2: haystack may be aware of barriers to participation and working to improve

D1: may be facebook group for dig. humanities

D2: facebook groups as "i *heart* [whatever]" phenomenon

D5: streamlined way to do grant applications.  info gathering, working with same people over again but still have to gather info.  updated cv's etc.  part of a broader problem of name authority, lib. of cong. no longer does name authority, this john smith is the same john smith that does history projects...

D2: would one way be to something like what openjournal does?  assistance in publishing process, milestones, standards.  media-assisted workflow?

D5: templated workflow woudl be good but want even more automation.  system should recognize who i am, update my publication records, feed into the granting system so i don't have to fill out the application by cut and paste

D6: comparison to common application for undergraduates.  "write the essay once and it gets stored"

D5: grant application process is one "client" for this; tenure application process another

D6: "e-portfolio" primary for students, grad students; place where they can store things (papers) which they want considered for later applications.  some are used for classes, where a body of work comes out of a class.

D2: staff looks after 19 sites, would be helpful if there were a common repo

D7: how many have read acls report for cyberinfrastructure?  found striking: isn't this what libraries (e.g. at harvard) already do?  maybe we should link all these libraries together, given that we rent access to datasets.  good for institutions with lots of funds.  maybe bamboo could analyze carefully what infrastructure would work for the poor as well as the rich.  one way we move from paper to digital (maps, e.g.) is by scanning, but at $20-30/sheet, hundreds of sheets, adds up.  need to know who else has already done this.  think of slide libraries already moving to scanned images, separately, when costs of moving slides into database with metadata is quite high.

D1: business of bringing resources to poor institutions - rationale is we have colleagues at professionally remote organizations who are underperforming due to poor access to resources.  pushing resources out benefits whole field.

D7: digital library federation is understaffed, should have a voice in bamboo. 

D2: some effort to keep vendors and commersh interests out of initial bamboo discussions early on, include everybody else.

D2: not hard to set up a way of talking and sharing what works and what doesn't, don't know why we don't have that

D6: a lot of repetition of scanning at different insts. has to do with copyright, unique artifacts

D7: we've been talking about this for years.  somebody needs to be organizing, promoting sharing, seeing how far fair use can be taken.

D6: we are!

D5: bamboo might be able to foster a dialog re: policy questions

D2: bamboo has been conceived as a technical solution, but hearing in workshops about non-tech issues.  what arguments should we give back to mellon that bamboo is well-suited to these issues?

D5: while we could come together to do collective tech, unless other things are addressed tools won't be usable.

D2: why is bamboo the venue for that? 

D7: because bamboo has shown it can raise interest in a way that brings together 3,4 interest groups.  seems library federations are the appropriate place if not for fact that library policies are not consistent across universities.  tension between IT orgs and libraries, between faculty and others, so a third party not identified with any one group has potential do solve problem.  every U already has a catalog, also worldcat, but we use our own.  if we insist on having our own catalogs of maps, we need a way to search across them.

D2: once heard it said, "metadata is like a toothbrush; everybody agrees we should use them but nobody wants to use anybody else's"

D7: any cyber infrastructure must give access to content

D4: "why bamboo?"  combination/nexus of tool building and community involvement.  both already exist, but bringing all the stakeholders and the tool-building idea makes bamboo unique.

D2: we're forced to work together because the digital is ubiquitous but must be highly structured.  ubiquity does not mean independence. must be thought out in advance.

D7: "fascist" program of commonality, uniformity.  potential objection: in doing this we are blinding ourselves, limiting ourselves...

D2: if we could all be google apps in the big google world...

D1: i don't think this precludes idiosyncracy

D2: left hand of google doesn't know what right hand is doing.  uniformity also cuts out... [lost in crosstalk]

D2: why 18 different metadata standards:

D1: different views

D7: mot difficult piece if himalaya digital library was heirarchical ontologies.    that s where arguments happen and that's where limits must be set.

D7: certain mode of scholarship always involves prioritizing certain kinds of information which can be gotten at in varous ways.  true coherence is hard to pin down.  when you move into codable facts, we're talking about db's, documents and such which have meaning, meaning is set aside because meaning doesn't code easily.  in data extraction from biographies, we want a system that doesn't involve judgment.  factoids.  place names, titles... everything has edges but when you start talking about personalities that can't be coded.  if db driven, how to know what giving up?  how to make it easy to pay attention to things that can't be encoded?

D2: one thing google and others are doing in figuring out similarities commonalities and ranking, is not to take AI approach of understanding, but to take context where something is identified by someone, characterizing clusters of groups mathermatically and then finding analogous clusters.  parts of speech, clusters of words, n-grams, statistical hashes.  find another instance where these things predminate.

D1: area of activity for us whether we're trying to communicate machine or "hand" work, ways of exposing judgment to computational proxies, ways of doing that are helpful.  some kind of analysis that chunks texts and then applies analysis to distill to a group of words, some way to expose that in ways easily translated (e.g. links) modes of exchange can become trained datasets.  easy case is reference works.  ways of linking between discursive analyses may bias

D2: "st augustine" is not a town in florida, ways of disambiguating.  people worry about students doing reasarch google lets them do easily

D2: as undergrad found one book on the illiad, thought had found "the book", copied down something from that book thought he was done writing about the iliad

D7: creation and constant updating of a humanities bootcamp course.

D2: british, canadian colleagues may be doing better.  digital humanities as a discipline.

D7; danger is that it becomes ever more complex.  example of curriculum for GIS with 40-some modules; how to do if you have 1 hour vs. if you have 5 hours?

D1: funding an entity to have custodianship of scope, inclusion

D7: different people in different fields can contribute modules  ("classical word", "china and japan", etc.)

D1: serves double purpose of helping remain aware of what colleagues are doing

D2: digital humanities journal which has trouble getting good submissions, because community doesn't have mindset that puts publishing
 

Back to top.
 

Group 1d - F

E1 -- universal transformation of humanities scholarship in the digital world, NEW GROUND RULES for future practices, keep working for the WHOLE community

Ground Rules:
E1 -- Completely and Openly exclusive
E2 -- Standards committee -- things can be "Bamboo Compliant"
E3 -- Bamboo as Think Tank, standards can be thought through and tested, white papers generated on subjects from (Community Colleges, publishing, academic blogging), include nonacademic sources -- Clearinghouse, liason to state and federal agencies
E1 -- what is for us "self evident" -- statement of principles

E4 -- interaction with the Law, outside the Academy (blogsphere, private collections, independent scholar)

E3 -- IP, UVA Library has an IP lawyer, could Bamboo hire a small legal staff

HIRE AN IP LAWYER

E5 -- How can we be nonexclusive but not hopelessly inclusive?  Need to have an identity -- E1 distinction between community and users

Need to be responsive to needs of scholar-researchers

E2 -- Clearinghouse for smaller software projects from individual scholars that can be of interest to the larger community, could just use SourceForge

E3 -- Bamboo needs to be robust enough that there are staff one can email and call-- E6-- but that requires a business plan to provide sustainability and salaries

E2 -- look for business models in Open Source Community

E6 and E5 and B3 -- need to develop ongoing standards with an eye to future changes and interoperability, access to real researchers and scholars as much as real lawyers

Encoded Archival Context (Toronto Standard) as a model and possible pilot

E3 -- design workflow between scholars and publishers with new technology CAN'T RELEARN EVERYTHING EVERY TWO YEARS

E1 -- Internationalization cannot work on the current Bamboo timeline, parallel international Bamboos?

Political dimension to internationalization is a serious problem, but there are lots of fascinating digitization projects elsewhere (China, India)

Internationalization cannot be added on at the end, if Bamboo is really supposed to be and international organization

Recommendation (with some reservations)
Create a Think Tank with staff and infrastructure and provide the following services
•    Work Towards Inclusivity beyond academia
•    Develop a communications clearinghouse for members of the community (questions, resources, etc.)
•    Standards of Interoperability
When do we extend to a truly global scope? What are the pit-falls, trade-offs?

Back to top.

Group 1d - G

  Themes

Audience?   General or early adopters    

        Scope: international

        Vision of sustainability

        Structuring community exchange

Tools, governance, sustainability, audience

-professional association

        Membership? Subscription fee

                Others out there

                Conference: job interviews!

                Target grad students

                Or informal

        Think tank? Endowment

                Closed or open

-tool: iterated development, overarching architecture, modules connected by APIs, scholarly workflows (Sakai)

-toolset

-platform and services

-aggregation of tools, projects, interested people;

maybe hosting

registering and aggressive research

discovery

-standards body: data exchange, tenure, data curation (OKI)

-professional development

Down to 3

-community

-clearinghouse

-evaluative

-draw on other orgs

Overall, more social than technical

One Structure the community

        Professional association: guidelines, annual meeting

                to

        Clearinghouse: central, connector

Two develop and sustain technical standards (aim for IEEE)

Third: develop sustainability models

Add: IP (where)

Together

Back to top.