Progress and Demonstrators
- Why are we doing this? Is it a bad idea?
- Goal analysis (cf. slides)
- Support for isolated scholars
- Meeting needs of early-years researchers (the flip side of 'this may not be so valuable for established researchers/scholars)
- Pursuing and developing collaborations
- Leveraging scarce resources, including "the tool exchange idea"
- http://vivo.cornell.edu/ - why not enable a profile page with communication?
- LinkedIn not as a solution, but as an exemplar from which to see some overlap with scholarly networking needs ... another example JN borrowed from sciences (will provide public link when he has removed borrowed materials)
- Scholarly Networking = Scholarly Communication 2.0
- Tony Cascardi (UCB): impediment inherent in requiring scholars to type in lots of stuff about themselves to build up a profile. Has SN WG discussed. JN: It has come up. E.g., citation index might prepopulate a list for approval of a scholar's publications as a significant aspect of profile buildout.
- Kathy Wilbur (U Washington): Exceedingly important. Should include graduate students. UMI Proquest instance? JN: what's the angle (vis-à-vis UMI and other efforts) /- can PB provide a data-mining free instance.
- John Lauden (U Louisiana): Likes to see that complementarity (to other efforts, from Zotero to whatever). What might that complementarity look like? JN: Lots of ideas, little captured. Most of work to date has been assuring ourselves that there's some real value to pursuing this PB direction ... "communication and collaboration enabled profiles" ... short answer: this is a TBD.
- John Coleman (Oxford): "How to create a safe place that's open?" is a question that was asked. JC thinks this is a central question, and a real opportunity, a point of purchase for Bamboo – steering a way between copyright locked-down to wide open, Creative Commons style middle-way.
Report: Proposal and Moving Forward
Discuss charter and scope in reference to proposal. How does the proposal outline impact the scope of this direction? Do the priorities of this direction change given the proposal outline? Is anything in this direction getting lost or overlooked given the proposal outline?
3-year plan: Where is the low hanging fruit? What are the most important priorities for each of the three years?
Workplan through Proposal Submission: What are the primary elements of this direction that belong in the proposal? What is the path toward fleshing out the elements?
- Didn't change name, happy with charter
- This might be part of cultural change for the people we're trying to help
- Concluded that between now and next meeting, formulate rather loose idea of what we might be talking about into something like a requirements document
- Some conversation about what sorts of things might be in there
- Making connections scholar-to-scholar
- Collecting institutional application profile data, some means of getting that up into a cloud to be reused for collection making
- Providing online collaboration spaces (ad hoc groups)- value for societies too
- Profile creation tools and possibility of Vivo or some other solutions that are out there as potential partners depending on their interest
- Data services that go with that
- Faculty profile reporting- some applications have been driven by annual reporting
- Some transparent way of having shared groups across institutions mingling with more local groups w/in an institution
- Tried to understand what sorts of things we might measure success against
- Discarded some activity-based monitoring because of point about cultural change, how difficult it would be to predict use of the system
- Did note that the system will naturally provide a lot of tracking data, good awareness of what use is being made
- At the end of 3 years - small institution solution-- software or hosted service
- Adoption as a measure of success-- at least 1 society engaging fully w/ network
- Adoption in all project partners is a good goal
- Up to 10 other institutions seems reasonable
- Data interchange, should negotiate some adopted data interchange standard (small 's' standard)
Group Discussion Notes
notes taken by Joan Falkenberg Getman
- Enabling discovery of scholars and their work: scholar to scholar to start with
- Enable formation of profiles from existing data sources at institutions
- Enable organizations and groups to form: in the cloud: or outside individual institutions
- Enable small institutions to engage in the network, though they may have not organized their data. Provide templates.
- Enable participation that creates a broader marketplace of interaction and exchange of ideas ( longer range priority)
- Activities in next 9 months
- Articulate functional criteria.
- Review existing applications that meet functional criteria.
- Find out which institutions would be interested in sharing their development work, experience and participating.
- Formative evaluation with scholars at select institutions, humanities centers, orgnaizations (CNET)- I added this one.
- Connect with services group (i.e. interoperability and search across institutions)
- Connect with stories group
- Requires cultural shift
- Needs to be addressed together with Education and Scholarly Narratives
- Important to include PhD students
- Need to develop incentives that will draw senior faculty
- Adoption by critical mass of institutions
- Did scholars find each other?
- Did scholars discover tools?
- Did the network facilitate collaboration?
- Did the network aggregate data so that it was useful for a variety of purposes: references, reporting, etc.?
- Did the network facilitate ongoing communication following professional meetings?
- Did institutions that used the network save resources? time? in having access to aggregated data on scholarly activities?