Page Tree:

Child pages
  • Q&A

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

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Table of Contents

Thursday morning - first questions

Institutional commitment

More about institutional commitment in the roadmap?
CJK: We're sorting through that s the workshop moves forward - figuring out what Bamboo should be leads to figuring out the dimensions of commitment
How are we going to lead this project? - making a decision is difficult when there's a lot of institutions involved
Leading institutions that represent part of the project on behalf of the rest of us?
Putting together a nimble system that can adapt to needs over time
Time/money/resources - we need to discuss this
DAG: By workshop 3, that will be much more clear


Respecting "we" - that's wonderful, but it may be different kinds of "we's"
Limited set of interests that we share
If I listen to this rhetoric with my colleagues, there's something missing - too much about services/tools, not enough about "stuff"
People are interested in "stuff" - they don't care about services/tools
They understand "resources" - you can reconfigure stuff/services as "putting together stuff" - you need a service that can make them play together
DAG: We didn't mean to bury that, but hopefully that'll emerge

Looking at existing tools and efforts

Good to brainstorm and think of tools/directions
Missing from formal process is standing back and looking at what's going on already
We don't want to duplicate, and also good ideas can be generalized
I've come across some innovative things, and there's no formal part of the process where it looks outward
DAG: That's been done somewhat on the wiki

Humanities culture and grad students

Encouraged that we're making it into a verb
Wife's first comment was "bamboozle" - PT Barnum
Culture of humanities and its resistance
Students, especially undergrad/grad might have some of the solutions
How is that getting captured?
CJK: How do we relate Bamboo in a way that makes sense to the various communities?
Planning project based on institutional model of participation with engaging students - it's difficult
In workshop 1, grad students participated as part of a project, as note takers, etc
Not sure how to address it
How can we turn to faculty member who's interacting with students and try to tease out that information?
We're open to thoughts on how to do it
DAG: We can build an environment that enables more flexible mashups - that's something we're seeing students do

Thursday morning - pre-exercise questions

Changing/evolving directions

What if we see the need to change/evolve the directions?
What if some of us are interested in multiple directions? Do we have to be siloed?
Some of us have to check back at universities to see about resources for doing this.
DAG: This is the workshop to shape directions
We want to take all the info about working groups we build here, look at them, sort through, and get in touch with people re: their interests, configurations, etc.
Asking people to volunteer, but we/you can review that
If you have a team of 2-3, you can each go to a different theme
If you want to be part of multiple working groups, you can do that, but you can only be in one conversation at a time during the workshop

Workshops 3 and 4

Schedule for workshops 3 and 4?
DAG: 3 scheduled for Jan 12-14, working on a location
Workshop 4 scheduled for March, no dates/location yet
Workshop 5 in May - want to fit in end-of-academic-year schedule
CJK: Core launch partners of the project in May?
Enough time to draft the proposal and have it to Mellon in July
Some work needs to be done after the proposal is submitted - all the documents and reports
What we've learned in wrangling an activity like this - we want to share it; that'd extend through the end of September
The material we've gathered is published on wiki and public and open
If you find it's valuable, feel free to use it; please let us know if you do


The term "marketability"
Relate to sustainability, focus/limitation issues etc.
DAG: A couple tables at Berkeley spent a while trying to figure out a strategy for sharing work, sustaining project, marketing - this is going to be an important piece for keeping the effort going
The term not used a lot, but the idea came across in other ways
Something that both connects and lasts
-How should we be thinking about it?
CJK: How do we express Bamboo's value to other internal communities, not necessarily to commercial space
DAG: People are here because you might want to move your institution to make a greater commitment to this area - how does this look to CIO, faculty, deans, etc.
"What's in it for me?"
-"Accountability" - positioning ourselves so that whatever questions are posed to us by funders, etc., we can show we have value

Thursday afternoon - Turning Themes Into Shared Scholarly Services

Defining services/architecture

Are you imagining a subset of this group spending time trying to go beyond the naive picture to define the services/architecture?
SM: Yes, we are looking at all the Bamboo directions including the services framework; those folks will look at how we'll take the next steps, with further steps in mind
-To what degree have you refined this so you're seeking confirmation rather than generation?
SM: Theme groups; now, how do we move from themes to shared services?
This will be a long process that we do as a project

Finding a common language

Been involved w/ programmers at different institutions; very hard to find a common language (people use Flash, Flex, etc.)
Where are you going to muster the political will to move beyond that?
SM: "Brave new world" is idea that "web services" sit as interface layer on top of different kinds of programming platforms
Standardized, defined way for different automation functionality to talk to each other regardless of what's behind the interface
-Never seen this work
DAG: You can see it in mashups on the web; using Google/Yahoo/Microsoft mapping services, rather than generating your own

Ways of breaking down scholarly practice

Assumption that we understand the scholarly practices such that we can break them down this way
You have to do a lot of back and forth with scholars to figure out what they're doing that's amenable to machine process
How are you going to scope this?
SM: Describing scholarly practices in this way can be a deep, complex, treacherous task
This next phase of work will look at fairly high-level definition of those activities
In the planning phase, looking for a high level map of the domain of activities
A lot of what will happen in Bamboo is that we'll look at places the community judges to be a good bet for investment
Bamboo won't create services to cover the whole roadmap - the terrain changes too quickly
What at this juncture in history could be done to keep things moving for a while? - Expectation that scholarship, technology will change
CJK: That was a big revelation we had in workshop 1 - went from trying to understand the entire spectrum and fill all the gaps, shifting to "there's always going to be gaps, for Bamboo to succeed we have to recognize that there's really common and really niche and there needs to be room for both."
How can we iterate on a regular basis?
"In 5 years we'll have the services?* - in 5 years we'll have moved on
What's the first signpost on the roadmap?

Aggregating theme groups

Can you simplify by aggregating further?
We organized our center by 3 ways technology has transformed scholarship: archives, analysis, publication
Discover and aggregate are part of archives
Annotating and considering is analysis
Share and publish is publication
Visualization tool seems like a special form of analysis
Is there some value to thinking about standard, intuitive categories?
SM: Problem with any standard intuitive categories is that any three people have four systems
John Unsworth's work on scholarly primitives, etc.
Our grouping of themes really aren't trying to describe scholarship in any taxonomic way
Just trying to make rough and porous boundaries that will help flesh out what the activities are
Can rethink any of these in terms of scholarly primitives, University of Minnesota classification, etc.
-Need to let go of the structure to move forward

What if divisions don't work for scholars?

However unintuitive and conventional these ways of describing activities may be, there has to be some point where A&H people in the room could push back and say you've got it wrong
If this isn't something where actual practices/needs at least in principle could be shaping how the roadmap works, I'd be concerned
SM: The point of especially these early phases of development of services roadmap (asking scholars to be most involved) is about listening to you say what your activity is
8, 3, etc. is a way of helping organize working groups, to better define activities in some area
We're not married to these 8 - there'll be discussions about how working groups should be formed out of this workshop
People interested in services framework will look into how to do the next phases of work
If these divisions aren't working for folks, we'll change it

What about artistic practice?

Where does artistic practice fit into here? Is A&H too big a bucket?
SM: A few places where, if you go deeper down and look at activities in eight areas, you'll see things that could conceivably relate to artistic practice
Larger question: are there categories of activities that don't fit at all in these 8? Do we need to surface something else to get at those kinds of things?
Late-night contribution of "real-time, real-space": put into "interact" area
Different ways for scholars to come together virtually to do what they do; preserve that activity in the digital realm
Working groups are for fleshing all this out further

Existing tools

Adaptive reuse of models that are already in place: is there a way to do adaptive reuse in the sense of inventorying the environment and looking at single-use tools, rather than building bottom-up
Arno Bosse: I've started doing this; on the wiki there's a section on digital tools/frameworks that are out there already
Fairly complete in "texts" section; the rest of the things are in note form
We identified some projects/efforts to do the same thing, like the digital research tools wiki
We're going to accelerate this work in the next couple days
SM: There have been and will be channels on the wiki for people to contribute to that survey
In the themes, people were asked to contribute what they knew about digital tools that addressed that theme
As working groups in services framework proceed from here, we'll ask people to identify tools/standards associated with the activities
Looking at this model, I like the direction of building services to address common tasks, but it's not building services that faculty in the humanities can consume directly - still requires mediation
SM: The "cloud of tools" project - many excellent tools that have addressed particular scholarly needs
One would expect those kind of efforts to continue, proliferate, etc.
Project Bamboo could provide "web service widgets" that could plug into more specialized needs and jump-start them so you don't have to build boring, low-level plumbing

Informing scholars of tools

To what extent would letting people know about those tools change scholarly practices?
Mediation level? May be new practices that would meet the tools
SM: Other directions that we discussed this morning are aimed squarely at that (education and training, networking, tools and repositories)

How do you identify what an entity is?

"Identify entities" - digital resources; to me this is where the humanities is much different from the sciences in identifying what these entities are
Deciding what the entities are is a domain, not services, issue
SM: A guess - the kinds of entities we identify will be pretty general; closer to "object" than "17th century French manuscript"
Digital representations of objects, though some might be born digital, and providing ontological/provinence/etc metadata
Bamboo can provide value in a general sense - can we take care of the "plumbing"?
Associating different kinds of metadata with different objects, without saying what that metadata should express (that's the "stuff", and we don't want to bound that)

Risks of using services

Risk that people won't use the services we propose
If Google Maps puts out a service, I'll use it because I know I'll get a few years use out of it at least
Have to have some trust; Bamboo will have to partner with organizations and monolithic institutions to borrow their sustainability in that aspect
I'll only use a service if it's really relevant to what I have to do right now
Will have to partner with people in cloud of tools to only develop tools which are absolutely relevant to a particular project right now
SM: These are some of the scariest risks of a services model
Some are risks of an evolution of technology - remember when storing things on a computer disk was scary? Now we take it for granted
Google has all sorts of cloud applications - don't have to have a word processor, can go to Google Docs and store it in their cloud; a lot of people are nervous about that
I wouldn't touch it when it came out, and now I'm getting more and more used to it
Going to see more evolution of models of business that do seem reliable to folks
In past workshops, we've heard that Google's business model and horizon of value is not at all the same as that of humanities scholars
Scholars think "how can I preserve this for 100, 1000+ years" instead of Google making money off something for 20 years
What are going to be institutional support models? Sustainability models of consortiums of universities? Governments?
CJK: Sustainability questions are the hard thing. Trust networks.
Bamboo is taking a huge risk in it- is this the time?
There's a technological way to do it; there's going to be a rocky road
Community question: thinking about services on a scale?
There's some services you figure will more or less be around - think Google
Compare to a web services thing spun up out of someone's garage - some people depend on those, and it's a risk
There's not a one-size-fits-all; how do we manage the risk at each one of these levels?
Exposing information to the world comes with a sense of reliability and sustainability
If I'm going to use your resource, I'm accepting some sort of risk - maybe it won't be up 100% of the time
Purely technical level doesn't capture everything about this: social issues and problems, the notion of what it means to work together as a community
How can we evolve over time to achieve success?

Nature of the roadmap

Roadmap graphic makes it seem more overdesigned and overspecified than what you're trying to work towards
Might be helpful to frame it as a way of having lots of components with standard interfaces that can facilitate creativity; these boxes wouldn't be pre-determined and pre-defined, people can create their own links between them
Getting people in different projects who might divide things up differently to still see links with Bamboo
SM: Wedding cake diagram is really very general; it's a roadmap, not roads, not survey documents for building roads
Looking to see what the domain is that we're talking about (very broad), will have to define at a very high level
Then, at a certain point (in time to write our proposal?) can identify some areas of the roadmap that Project Bamboo wants to prioritize
Immediate value proposition; tool makers who are interested in X small area, tool makers interested in Y small area - pieces that have to be in place for us to do anything
Having mapped this out publicly, there's nothing to prevent (and lots to encourage) other efforts to build niche services that will address too focused areas for Bamboo to address
CJK: All of what needs to be done isn't in all of Bamboo
If the roadmap gives us a sense of where we like to go, the project moving forward (hopefully) creates opportunities for people in a certain domain to bring up a service that plugs a particular hole, and then make it available to the community.
Bamboo isn't really meant to stand out on its own, it's meant to fit into existing workflows
If Bamboo has value to a new project, then maybe that project can reciprocate and bring something to Bamboo; it's an exchange
This project can't address every possible need; we need to figure out ways that fuel innovation in other places that can then contribute back to the larger community
-Very provocative discussion; should we not design/build services, but build the things around that?
For example, at least 3 lemmatizer services, 2 services doing the same thing for entity recognition; we want to enable scholars to discover services and share them
Have you thought about mechanisms to foster that?
CJK: Yes, we've thought about it; we need to bring up these things in the discussion today and tomorrow

Central position of services

In the morning, we were told this was a community and we're establishing the direction, but it seems like we've been hearing what Bamboo is and what services Bamboo will build
Why not put us in the middle of the diagram, not the services?
Many of us have said that the tools are already there (Google, our own universities)
Do we want to have building in the center of our community, or to do something else with the power of the people we've brought together?
We could do something achievable that others could then build on
DAG: To contextualize this, Steve was doing a deeper dive in one of the seven directions
We laid all seven out with equal width this morning because we want to understand each of those
The services idea is fundamental in finding a way in between institutions (instead of building them separately) for us to work together'
If you have thoughts of how we should shape this, you can join that working group
It's been a back-and-forth where we look at how we organize/think of scholarly practice, all the way to how it relates to services
It's a risky thing - if you have an interest in working on the themes and the practices, don't be put off by the deep discussion of how to do services modeling
We'd like people to help us in between workshops who want to push further towards scholarly practices to develop themes, get all those puzzle pieces out on the table
Matters less how we divide things up, and more important about whether we have a good humanities-driven process that addresses those activities
How do you do the services architecture in the best way to make it happen?

Compare and contrast with other projects

When you talk about shared infrastructure, the nearest analog in my mind is open source learning management systems
Have you looked at the way Sakai goes about their business
CJK: We've looked at a number of projects
What make this different from Sakai, their projects create software to solve a specific problem on a specific campus
We're talking about enabling those applications and any other to connect and create new opportunities; you don't have to install anything to "be Bamboo"
We're not dealing with that common problem that needs to be solved in a narrow sense
One of our motivations for becoming engaged in this: from a tech perspective, there's a better way than for humanists beating their heads against the wall solving the same problem over and over
We're breaking from tradition - maybe Bamboo doesn't create any services at all. Aggregator, distributor, broker, etc. for services created by others to enable reuse in a different way
Trying to find an analog in this space where we're dealing with creating capacity for innovation and solving exiting problems
Student information system - not usually designed for solving new student information system problems
-For Cambridge, Sakai is a group of institutions with shared ideals and goals, it's not specifically a software project
-Listening to the either/or, I think there might be phases; starting with sharing tools/services and not being about building, but maybe finding through discovery process that there's tools Bamboo could build or advocate for

Work involved in the next step

Feeling overwhelmed; we've got 350 workshop 1 participants who generated a couple dozen themes, which then got aggregated
Now we have 1/3 that number of participants, hundreds of activities, expecting the same sort of output in a few months?
SM: Looking for a pretty shallow start - name, definition, references
It'll all be on the wiki, so hopefully it won't be just one person working on it
People who know about different tools, etc working together

Reusing existing work and tools

E-framework is trying to do the same thing as Bamboo for education and research community
Can see so many interrelationships and overlaps in the services you'll be identifying, and other projects are documenting and sharing
Important to look at what's been done already
Have you considered engaging with the e-framework community?
SM: We have a homework assignment
-Open Knowledge Initiative is worth looking at
There's a tremendous amount of work still to be done
CJK: We've been looking at OKI
The world has changed a lot since '06, process has evolved a lot
A lot of what Bamboo should be doing is embracing things that have already been done, going through services/standards that already exist rather than creating something new
Enabling groups to use what already exists, opening doors that already exist; we don't need to redefine things
There was an early response e-mail: "Bamboo is going to redefine jpeg" - NO!
Technical folks have to have the discipline to say "It may not have been invented here, but it's ok to use it" - instead of starting over to make the perfect thing
Build on what's already been done

Friday morning

A lot to do

Comment about there being a lot on the plate - I was generating thoughts about what could be on the plate
There's a lot of potential, but also a lot of stuff
An achievable focus is important
CJK: we had that many people and that many workshops
Each workshop stood alone - no one saw the data from anywhere else

Need to flesh out the wiki

I started going through the wiki yesterday, realized what a great resource it is
Some things are missing out of the projects and journals; could we use that as a research and fill it out a little more?
DAG: We'll be using the wiki to capture info about working groups, and in the next phase
The more people here flesh it out, the better the project will be

Daunting "wedding cake"

Spoke with a couple people yesterday, the "birthday cake" for humanists was very sobering
Made me wonder - "what is this all about, how do I fit here?"
DAG: That was one concern - we wanted to cover that info, but not scare or alienate people
We tried to make that connection between discussion of scholarly practice and the way we think about services
Directions we laid out show balance between with perspectives of humanities scholars
This is the opportunity and challenge of the project

Need for a summary

"Be democratic, be democratic, be not too democratic"
In reading the wiki, I didn't quite know where to start and where to end
I want an overview! Even the NYTimes has an overview
Some gentle but incisive way of putting the strands together and saying what is the story that's being told here
DAG: We realized we took all the raw data from the four workshops 1 and published them; then we asked people to jump in and do an interpretation
It was a daunting task
In the last couple weeks, some next layers of interpretation developed
The next piece of the wiki si to put more interpretations on
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid" - today Chris Mackie is here

Teams of people

Idea of "team of people" coming together; divide between IT folks and humanists,
I keep thinking "scholar's network" but I hope for an online community that keeps all of us together in this - this is the uniqueness of the Bamboo Project
On my own campus, I'm trying to bring together groups of people (IT, librarians, scholars, etc)
DAG: This is part of the spirit of what we're trying to build

Building on the work of others

Were talking about building on the work of others; I hope that makes it possible to do what we're trying to achieve
Reference to e-framework yesterday; how might Minnesota help us?
We have a bigger chance if we can build on that, other Mellon-funded work, etc.

People from multiple categories

For a day and a half I've been hearing periodically scholars, IT, faculty, IT,
The best part of an Oreo cookie is the squishy white stuff in the middle
We need some middleware; librarians can provide it, it's not just scholars/IT
DAG: We asked yesterday about the hybrids - people from different perspectives
Trying to cultivate support from "translators" - people who come from multiple worlds and speak multiple languages


Could you say more about where the themes are coming in for the people in the different directions?
Are people supposed to be looking at the themes?
CJK: Themes relate to all of these, though it's difficult to say how things cluster
Directions emerge out of data collected in workshop 1
How does theme information fit back in as you build your discussion

Friday afternoon - demonstrator projects

What kind of demonstrator projects?

What could we ask for as a demonstrator project?
KHC: A visualization of some sort, a presentation, a place to share stories, etc.
DAG: A brochure featuring a test case for your school

Why is UofC doing the demonstrator projects?

What we have to do is create a good idea and YOU'LL build the demonstrator?
KHC: Mellon has funded staffing for demonstrator projects; I've got staffing
-Does the funding go to you, the demonstrators are done by you, and go back?
It'd be a disaster to try to rearrange the resources so other people make them, right?
KHC: If you have resources you'd like to include, we'd love to hear about it, but we do have some resources to start with
CJK: We want to bring this back to workshop 3 to illustrate concepts, so people can see what we want to achieve
Share ideas with the group in more than abstract wedding cake diagrams, bullet points, or hypotheticals
DAG: Something you can take to your colleagues to further the discussion

What would Bamboo bring to PAIR?

What would Bamboo bring to PAIR?
KHC: Your question is the answer to the question; what Bamboo brings is a more open, flexible approach to writing software
They could've written it from the start as something open, but that wasn't what their funding was for
What happens if you spend the extra time to make your product more open, able to work with different ideas?
If we make shared services, we ccan improve infrastructure for humanities across the baord?
What's a shared service? What does it look like? What sort of problems do you get as a result?
-What does Bamboo-compliance meant to PAIR
CJK: We don't know yet - that's why we're here
KHC: We'd be playing with ideas of openness, agnosticism, etc. with respect to PAIR; it's a demonstrator, not an advanced model
CJK: There's no "Bamboo compliant" - this is trying to illustrate notion of a fully built, legacy application used for many years already, but can you strap a way of processing text out of that so it still works in its vertical environment, but can also be taken out to work on data from somewhere else, so I can access the algorithm even without knowing about Philologic
Idea of exposing a service that another piece of software can connect to and gain benefit from

Demonstrator projects as marketing tools?

It sounds like one thing we could think about with demonstrators is think of them as marketing tools - to other faculty, scholarly societies, IT folks, etc.
What if you made a 5-minute video of a professor of music doing what they do, and have a markup of "Bamboo could go here"
Or 5 minutes on what a medievalist looking at heresy is thinking about, and all the places you need to go to find out what you want to find out, the roadblocks you have, etc.
Something with a narrative, case-study, explanatory marketing slant to it
KHC: This brings up a danger of demonstrators - by making anything, you start to limit (suggest to people) what you can make
"So, is this a text analysis project?"
Try not to see demonstrators as a sign of what Bamboo is or what we're going to do, but rather the benefit of the Bamboo approach

Communication mechanism or prototype?

I had the impression that a demonstrator was a communication device, but the PAIR example looks more like a prototype; can a demonstrator be either/both?
KHC: Yes, sometimes one format is more useful than the other
DAG: As working groups think about this, consider ways demonstrators of either form can move that forward

"We" is now "you all"?

This has turned from a "we" to "you all" - you all are going to do this, you all are going to build demonstrators
Can we have an example of collaborative tool building as a demonstrator
DAG: We're not opposed to people working collaboratively, we just have a pool of resources to make it easier to move ahead, not to take away from collaboration

Project vetting

You said to e-mail you with potential demonstrators - I'm assuming there's going to be a range of projects proposed, what's the selection process?
KHC: I don't think there's a process at this point, but until we start getting the requests coming in (are they all 3 day? visualizations?) I don't want to pre-plan too much until we know what the problems are going to be.

Value of exposing PAIR services

Meta-comment on the computational linguist who said "we do this all the time"
When Mark Olsen showed this to me, it was an eye-opener: it's a way of seeing patterns of intertextuality
I'm not aware of anyone in the humanities (literary scholars) who have used that tool
We may in this case have very considerable payoff for very primitive technology transfers, and afterward we'll ask "why didn't you do that before?"
The stuff that is useful to the humanists may be very boring to the computer scientists
Very simple transfers can have very powerful effects

Saturday morning

Need for rich stories

From what I've been hearing, I'm more convinced that a great deal is going to hinge on the breadth and richness and truth value of what we can find out about humanities practice
Thoughtful, textured stories of those analysis of stories of people's daily activities with respect to real research
The full measure of this hasn't been taken
How would you do this? - Stunned by its magnitude, lots of attempts have been made, but we haven't reached it yet
Succeeding would be important precursor for getting kind of community credibility needed to get resources from everyone else
DAG: Relates to what happened in Workshop 1 and where we are right now
Difference between "thin description" and "thick description" - to some degree, a services roadmap or thematic grouping analysis is a case of moving into thin description
In multiple working groups yesterday, the idea or need for stories, case studies, etc came up - representation that we weren't capturing enough
Struggling here to figure out the relationship between them in finding a common language and translation

Report from preliminary Stories group

Stories meeting held after the session yesterday, before the session this morning
A fifth group contributed to it this morning
Need for a richer, higher-level narrative and personal connection to what it is that we're doing as a community that needs to be maintained and linked to actual activities
Started the logistics - how do we do this?
Lots of passionate people in this community, but in the end everyone's able to sit together and make the needed compromises
There's a page on the wiki with title "Stories" - putting together our first cut of how we might gather this information
Looking for ideas about how this might be analyzed, how we can maintain those linkages
People here with experience analyzing text, deriving structure from text; need on the front end to have some idea of structure needed to maintain order
Workgroup for collecting those stories - we might not get the right info at first, but we can iterate
What's a good structure for analysis, wiki pages, demonstrator project - linkage between piece of text describing work of a scholar, and a set of artifacts we've committed to (services, tools) that will drive the work of Bamboo

Reflections on Stories

Susan Brown of Orlando Project developed a number of workflows for her project - writing out specifications for distributed editorial environment for how people interact
Articulate workflow arrangements in a way a non-technical person can understand
Are we getting into the world of "Joe the Plumber" - personalizing everything?
We don't know how much difference digital resources have made; scholars themselves may not know
If you sample articles using JStor from the last 10-20-30 years and do a citation analysis and try to figure out to what extent availability of digital resources has expanded the frame of reference - do we know anything about this?

How are Services unique to the Humanities?

"Services" is still something I wonder how it's different for the Humanities
Authorization, search engines - these aren't unique services
The activities on top of the services are the unique part
Scholarly network and education are things that are directly Humanities
DAG: We're looking for leverage across the whole university in terms of services that are shared at a lower level, that you don't have to duplicate, but at the higher level we're trying to think about unique elements and how they can be enabled that fit in with Humanities practices

Saturday afternoon


Working groups came up with demonstrators - which ones are going to be pursued, what time schedule, 3 hour/day/week?
DAG: Will need volunteers in the working groups to help with those demonstrators

Capturing stories

Stories and gathering stories for multiple groups' purposes
Need the information architecture to capture those stories
DAG: Some people have already taken leadership with Stories - if some people want to volunteer to help with information architecture, great
Open University has provided tools to help

The "elevator speech"

Theme about the "elevator speech" - this is needed before the next meeting, particular re: question of how it helps move faculty forward
DAG: Statements of value propositions - "What's in it for me"
Institutional support group might be able to help flesh that out
A demonstrator: a brochure or something to hand out
Have to be able to tailor for different kinds of audiences

  • No matter which group you're trying to address, the angle has to be "why does it matter to faculty" - if it doesn't matter to them, this is pointless

Wiki improvements

Reports that trying to get into the wiki (UI) was difficult
Need better structure, paths into wiki content would be helpful
DAG: Need at least one layer of interpretation on top of raw data to make workshop more accessible
If there's people with thoughts and ideas about what wasn't accessible, how it could be more accessible, please tell us


What is the demographics of the constituents represented here?
Is the demographic directly related to the mission?
DAG: Summary data about who's participated?
-Yes, even a pie chart of demographics; could help identify a better definition of what you consider A&H

Schedule for next workshop

If it's possible the organizing committee would consider not doing January 12-14, but later, it's important to decide very soon if you want faculty participation
Think of not just younger faculty but senior faculty too - view of P&T

Webcasting future workshops

DAG: We need to find some way to allow people to participate remotely; we're already beginning a conversation particularly with European partners on how to proceed

Including "digital humanists"

Different constituencies: would like to advocate for a digital humanist/digital humanities group
Lisa Spiro - list of all the job descriptions in the MLA that ask for someone who specializes in digital humanities or as a skill area they'd like
There's people who are called "digital humanists" - and they're not the sticky stuff in the middle of the Oreo, they're a new gourmet treat
Still worried about the vocabulary we're using