Page Tree:

Child pages
  • Services Framework

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

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Services Framework

Questions that need to be addressed to shape this direction

  • How do we expand on what's available and make it accessible?
  • How is scholarly practice attached to a service identified? What is the method for selecting that service?
  • How will existing tools work with to fit the service framework?
  • How might we make sure that our framework supports the live creative act (capturing that content for use)?

Direction name


  • How should we articulate the scope of this direction?




Task desciptions

  • Review the preliminary activities list
  • Flesh out missing activities
  • Name each activity
  • Roughly define each activity
  • Note related tools
  • Note related Standards


  • Which of these tasks needs further clarification?
  • Should any tasks be added?
  • In what order would you prioritize these?


Contact List

  • No labels


  1. Unknown User (

    Discussion Notes - Services Framework - W2 Breakout Group #3

    [Thanks to Rick Peterson of Washington & Lee University for these notes.]

    Use Cases or stories that are elicited by scholars themselves. What are the grand challenges of that field that IT can help tackle?

    Create PB mapping back to those list of use cases.

    Provides voice for scholars, provides something a little more digestible.

    Most may not be able to agree on grand challenges.

    Are we building for the future or are we trying to make the scholars do today better?

    Our initial task is to work with the self-selected digital humanities group

    What are the pain points?

    Is Bamboo an enabler?

    Is Bamboo a process that helps us do the things we want to do?

    Should we move a more bottom-up approach?

    Never have seen a good top down approach to solving a humanist's problem.

    Now focused on technology and tools, AND we need to bring CONTENT into this discussion

    We want to connect things up and annotate

    Try to find scholars who have use cases and start to flesh out how to support their work

    What are the interlocking practices around a particular scholarly project?

    We don't want to reinvent Zotero, Terris, TextGrid, Caesar, SilverLite (MS' version of Flash - mashup tool)  etc. What can PB be or add in this current environment? What problems are PB going to solve?   (PB as a SilverLite with our data formats??) (What about historical overlays for Google - overlays made for the humanities)

    PB my address these kinds of needs in a component architecture. You would pick problems and solve them but do it in a different way.

    Could we leverage scholarly process?

    Some way to orient ourselves around a shared story. Need to agree on some shared stories. Write stories about how PB would make life easier for scholars and scholarship.

    Maybe PB is service discovery method.

    PB could be an enabling technology with a set of services.

    How do you turn stories into efficient research workflows.

    We transcribed something; can we find a way to deposit it?

    we did get to some of the key issues -

    • what really IS the scope?
    • We are getting down to some detail.
  2. Unknown User (

    Group Report Notes - post Breakout Group 3

    Duffy Gillman

    • will rejoin this conversation later ... this last session did not focus on "assigned" questions
    • disconnect between SR presentation vs. need to get input from A&H scholars; and feedback from A&H scholars that they're not seeing themselves in green boxes on diagram or list of activities
    • being a technologist DG can see building something to support scholarship, but PB seems to have lost guiding principles re: keeping A&H scholars in the drivers seat
    • How to scope to make that happen?
    • What small, bounded thing can we build as a small community of 200 ... when scope as currently & loosely defined is so huge
    • How to regain some of that connection and empower A&H scholars to feel their needs are being addressed, and how can we go back to our institutions and explain how A&H will be supported by what PB is planning to do?
    • What are the stories or use cases or visions - that not all of us heard in W1 'cuz not all of us were there - that we agree are the problems we want to solve ... and how do they map to those little green boxes

    Philip Thurtle

    • Please, A&H scholars, come join our group ...
    • Little to add to Duffy's excellent synthesis
    • Collecting all the things that scholars do then chunking from there: is that the best method?
    • What about case studies, possible projects that these services could produce tools for, might those be a starting point for discovering what PB ought to make vis-à-vis a Services Framework?
  3. Unknown User (

    Discussion Notes - Services Framework - W2 Breakout Group #4

    [Again, thanks to Rick Peterson for these notes]

    Artist [Roberto of UoC] displayed a view of our conversation before lunch.

    Two handouts were delivered by Worthy Martin at UVa [these are slides from Services Roadmap presentation of 10/16]:

    • Tool-Infrastructure Interaction
    • Using Shared Services: Auth

    There was a comfort when discussing "use cases."

    One may start from an activity and then here is the kind of process that the scholarly practice(s) is a part of. Hard to work from the abstract.

    Practices in workshop 1 were distilled and turned into a common set of services. Do we need examples of how we were listening to the scholar.

    What is key is maintaining a connection to the real concrete things that scholars need to do. Scholars don't recognize what was created for Workshop 2. Can we go back to noting that we need to produce a product that directly relates to a scholar's process.

    We have to take a REAL example - even if it is a one-off. If we a collection of stories we have real, concrete uses to validate uses against. E.g. what would "image search" (in abstract) mean in reality?

    Have we lost the stories? It seems that right now we have the atoms.

    The Wiki itself is not inviting and good at showing and demonstrating what we want to be doing.

    Technologists have their own way of validating their work. What keeps the technologist's aligned to both the schools and the "layer cake."

    It was suggested that the next activity would be to create data for each activity (name, descripton, etc.). Could we rename "activity" with "overall process?"

    THESE items below could be added to the Text Description section

    • Reviewed scholarly process (e.g.)
    • Name a process

    Stores and Case Studies give us access to what are the real scholarly processes.

    Is there a disconnect on what "services" means? What we are missing in the middle - we lost the vision. May be recovered in the Use Cases. How do we measure success?

    Idea is that PB is to build things "underneath" various tools. What's the process of how we get there? How do we connect ways of working and get people to see what is going on.


    • Stories
    • Descriptions are graspable to a scholar
    • A Vision may be expressed - to enable these stories to happen, as facilitated by technology. The story(ies) could be a picture.

    How do we use the Demonstrators? Have to use some shared components - maybe we say there has to be some stages so the scholar can try things out.

    Some boundary objects: story with picture with demonstrator/tools. Over generate using story/picture. Extanciate (sp?) with technology

    We want people to speed from reality.

    What do you do (well or badly) currently?

    What was collected at workshop 1 was scraps of stories written on flip charts. There are full stories on the Wiki


    Could harvest stories out of the content from the first workshops.

    Collect Stories - good to connect with scholars. We do not want an arbitrary list of stories, though. Do we need a collection method? We will do it and do it wrong the first time. Will need to know the field, type of activity, contact info to get stuff we missed. How do you begin? Who did you talk to? How did it grow? Etc.

    Zoe (UCLA) will write up some representative stories that are on the Wiki.

    Lisa Wymore (UC-Berkeley) volunteered also.

    Others will do this as well, as they wish.

    Think of scholars and technologists co-author or parallel-author stories. May be a commentary process. Create something synthesized from the start. Could PD staff help here?

    How many stories in two months? A few, well crafted demonstrators. Scholars could contribute their own stories.

    A first round - generate stories

    A next round - break into small groups around a common demonstrator

    What do we do after we re-contextualize the stories? Create demonstrators around these stories. Which stories would inform demonstrators?

    Scholars were having a hard time relating to the activities. Their story could now help add to the information on the activities (as we thought to do during this (and after) the workshop. We have come up with a replacement of the "green layer" (theme groups)with a bunch of stories. Activities are the ultimate goal, bound by stories (which is a new way of bounding instead of what we were doing in the past with theme groups).

    Stories → activities -> next steps

    Can draw stories out, tie them together, then make some new pictures

    Demonstrators could be part of gathering and supporting the stories. Projects and their links could be SHOWN and then people could respond.

    Consider getting a few stories out there for now is the way to begin. We can expand "into" later. Concentrate on the demonstrator as the story, containing specific types of services/activities.

    This is hoped to help scholar re-engage with activities.

    We don't need to regenerate activities, just make the linkages.

    Something is lost when an activity ("atom") is removed from the stories.

    Stories could be told in the terms of the activities.

    The initial 4/6 demonstrations would be a source of stories. Rich will get people a list. We want the stories to be ACTUAL projects and use of the project.

    A workgroup will function between now and the next meeting. People interested will meet at 5 today.

    Ask for stories by Friday before Thanksgiving.

    1. Unknown User (

      Hello Services Framework Working Group

      I wasn't sure the best place to try and post this comment. I was unable to attend the last day of the conference and therefore may have missed some details around plans for the Services Framework Working Group. I just wanted to say that I will be contacting my Dean and others in the Berkeley Bamboo group about collecting a story or stories and also a demonstration project (these two things may overlap). Looking forward to the next workshop.

      Lisa Wymore

  4. Unknown User (

    Group Report Notes - post Breakout Group 4

    • Initial suggestion was not taken sympathetically. Activities too atomized, especially difficult for scholars to connect to that.
    • Looked for ways to recontextualize these activities, which did come out of original context of what scholars said (or at least what was captured of what they said) in W1 workshops ... big problem was that storyline was lost in the captured material
    • Suggestion is that WG in this direction build some stories that scholars tell, perhaps in cooperation with an IT person or librarian, and try to describe those stories in terms of the activities
    • This story-in-terms-of-activities concept might relate well to what's meant by a "demonstrator" project
    • So fleshing out activities will start with contextualizing the activities by linking them to scholars' stories
    • sources might include stories told in W1, esp. insofar as we can go back to W1 participants and ask them to retell or otherwise flesh out what was captured at the first series of workshops
    • "stories" = boundary objects on which both scholars and librarians/IT folks could "hang our hats on"