Bamboo and tools/content

"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" (W2, Q&A, Thursday morning - first questions)

"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" (W2, Q&A, Thursday afternoon - Turning Themes Into Shared Scholarly Services)

"what about a focus on stuff, elevating the stuff element so that it's not just about tools? or tools and archives? OR, rather than building tools, create a list of the things that a tool must be able to do." (W2, Tools and Repository Partners, questions and concerns, group 12 notes)

"What about a focus on stuff? Elevate the stuff element. Tools and archives a "friendlier" title for this? Or tools & content-providers? "Repository" is a mechanical level, and what's of concern to scholars is the content itself.
TR: how do we search into materials that are in a "locked access" repository - commercial, copyright-protected stuff? How to annotate those materials?" (W2, Tools and Content, questions and concerns, group 12 notes)

"Risks: Build something that doesn't meet the needs of the end users (too complex, not what anyone's looking for, people say they don't need this) - have to do ethnographic research, how do people actually work? How much time can they invest in learning something w/o clear-cut path to success? Scholarly adoption of known/emerging resources and tools? How do we know people will find these productive? Don't want to see Bamboo as a waste of scholars' time." (W2, Tools and Content, plenary notes, risks and rewards)

"Rewards: Broad access. Could be great efficiencies, great economies of scale. New research opportunities that are truly interdisciplinary. MySQL - community of users from broad array of disciplines; all working towards common goal. Great boon to actually be able to talk to people developing those kinds of tools. Tool developers want to work with humanities data. Marketplace of ideas that rewards risk-taking (as long as it's not too high). People are not willing to take these risks early in their career; if there's obvious rewards, we can leapfrog research in the humanities." (W2, Tools and Content, plenary notes, risks and rewards)

"Risk: Bringing together content from different sources, PB could have a liability if someone reverse-engineered restrictions and did bad things to the content." (W2, Tools and Repositories II, plenary notes, risks and rewards)

"Because none of the content exists on her campus, she turns to the Bamboo Discovery Tool to seek out content (or more specifically, content services) from across the Bamboo Community that matches her needs. She discovers that one national library and three research university libraries have digitized works that meet her requirements along with Google for contemporary maps and some digitized texts. Not knowing where to look for a timeline application, she uses the Discovery Tool once again, but this time locates a timeline widget not unlike the SIMILE Timeline tool from MIT. Because everything she discovered is exposed to the Bamboo Community, she knows that each provider will allow her - under specific conditions that are published as part of the service - to use materials for academic purposes, and that both the content and tools will be exposed via software services that she can connect together in standard ways to meet her specific needs. Because she is not a programmer and does not have access to programming resources, she turns to the web-based Bamboo Composer Tool, a visual development environment similar to SEASR and Yahoo! Pipes, to graphically connect the content resources with the timeline widget. She expands upon the content with her own research, which includes a unique approach to medieval maps, and creates her new application. She embeds the timeline within her web page and exposes her tool, Timeline of Anglo-Saxon England (TASE), to the Bamboo Community for others to use." (SN-0052 Timeline of Anglo-Saxon England Scenario, from the Bamboo Planning Project proposal)

"Monitoring process is part of the [Thought Ark] system - using "idle cycles" of research process; what you do in the solitude of your office is put into the system, can tell what's more/less used. When it collects the data, what does it do? What's the value of the data on usage for the research process? It's analyzed and attached to every piece of resource that's been utilized. Each resources has a utilization score based on user usage. You can use a formula to decide what the value of a citation is. Details about what technologies you're using in the tool? Was written from scratch; it's a mix in terms of functionalities we've built into it. Blogging system (don't necessarily blog like bloggers, you write papers). Serial publication system with social networking capability - whatever you write can be shared/posted on your "wall" and people can express interest in it." (Scholarly Networking working group, 12/9 meeting notes, Sorin Matei)

"The model we have discussed is a web-portal integrating web archives and analytical tools and e-publishing, in consultation with applied multi-disciplinary organization(s) such as the Association of Moving Image Archivists. I attended the recent AMIA convention, and this idea was met with enthusiasm. One take on the process to follow would be to locate historical newscasts already online; advocate for additional newscasts to be placed online; cultivate tool sets for tagging and metadata; investigate possible tools for precise citation and other scholarly notation; deliberate about possible licenses for mash-up capabilities, etc. This project would require skills across the full complement of Bamboo's constituency: Humanities, IT, and library personnel. Because of recent amendments to Section 108(f)(3) of the copyright law, there may be a key role for libraries as points of distribution. It is assumed that we might start small, working with local and regional collections, and aspire to work with major network news collections. (Could we eventually posit, for example, an Academic Hulu that provides fair use scholarly access to news libraries, etc?)" (Tools & Content Partners working group, Fleshing out ideas for demonstrators, Mark Williams, 12/10/08)

"A demonstration of how scanned texts can be enhanced with links to contextually relevant resources. Using the output of an optical character recognition (OCR) process, line and word locations can be determined, allowing interactive selection and highlighting of references to people and places. These references can be detected automatically or manually added as annotations. Part of the Contexts and Relationships: Ireland and Irish Studies project. This demonstrator shows how NLP techniques, in conjunction with search technology can help scholars in identifying contextual content for texts being studied automatically. The process starts with scanning of the texts (in the example used in the demonstrator the scanning was done by our collaborators at Queen's University Belfast, and is being included in JSTOR). We transformed the TIFF page images and XML OCR output we received from Belfast into PNG images and JSON for fast, lightweight viewing in a web browser. The Scrolling reading interface is built with Javascript, again utilizing the Yahoo User Interface libraries[5]. Because the OCR output contains information about the bounding boxes of the recognized words, we can simulate highlighting and selection of words on the scanned image. The named entity detection is done using OpenCalais." (Tools & Content Partners working group, Texts and Context Demonstrator, 1/13/09)

"Attempt snapshot survey or audit of tools/practice sites that other orgs and inst have already done. Debate about this goal - is it effective or could it even be effective? changing terrain. But we have to come up with a snapshot assessment to understand what to do differently." (W3, Education, Report: Proposal and Moving Forward)

"Focus on identifying/discovery of tools, content, models.Has to be tied back into stories and scholarly narratives of real scholarly practice. Identify tools/content that might apply. Revised charge would say we're an interface between concrete stories of scholarly practice and the shared services PB will enable. Translate stories into recipes involving specific tools and content, utensils and ingredients. May call for identifying/describing tools, outlines of APIs that have to be supported. Advocating and encouraging development of new tools, gap analysis, and content. Referring and review of tools and content." (W3, Tools & Content Partners, Report: Proposal and Moving Forward)

"PB has to balance creating glue/services (within the purview) but making a highly specialized tool (maybe not), but maybe Bamboo can delegate and say "you guys go make this thing" - giving endorsements for grants, etc." (W3, Scholarly Narratives, Q&A)

"The Tools & Content working group shall develop models for discovering tools and content, develop recipes that use tools and content to achieve tasks described in the Scholarly Narratives, and identify ways of engaging the tool and content development community. Specifically we will develop: 1) Discovery Models: Identify and define models for discovering tools and content relevant to Bamboo. In doing so, the working group shall develop demonstrations that illustrate how tools and content identified can support digital humanities scholarship taking into account the breadth of institutions and organizations already part of Bamboo and the even broader range of potential tool and content partners. 2) Recipes: The working group shall assist in the analysis of scholarly narratives gathered and generalize these into "recipes" that illustrate concretely how tools and content sources can be exploited to achieve an articulated scholarly needs described in narratives by the community. 3)Gaps: The working group shall identify gaps in the tools and content landscape based on the recipes and work with the Shared Services working group to define the needed tools and content. 4) Delivery Models: The working group shall consider models for delivering tools and content whether centralized, federated, peer-to-peer, or other approaches for integrating tools and content resources. To that end the working group shall place particular emphasis on models employing open interfaces and/or shared services and shall gather references to specific standards and/or practices that promote interoperability and reuse of content, tools, workflows, and/or services. 5) Outreach: The working groups shall identify potential tool developer and content provider outreach strategies that will promote a sustained dialogue of developers and content providers through Bamboo." (Tools & Content Partners working group charter)

""track usage of developed services, and provide for feedback collection; these will be presented in ways that are meaningful both to scholars and to technologists" I'd push this just a little -- toward identifying and gathering the kinds of usage data and feedback that are useful to both scholars and technologists. It seems like what we don't want to imply is: "collect the usual stuff and then find ways to present it in a format meaningful to scholars." Scholarly interests influence the data collection as well." (Shared Services working group, Program Document Sec 3.1 - Preliminary Overview, Michael Spalti, 2/19/09 comment)

"Somehow this view of the Marketplace seems more concrete and organized in this language, a "framework," compared to the earlier "anything goes" reference. Is in fact the Marketplace Bamboo centric or truly what goes on in the wild?" (Shared Services working group, Program Document Sec 3.1 - Preliminary Overview, Jim Muehlenberg, 2/19/09 comment)

"Digital collections are often built to support local use. In many instances they are created by an individual or institution to support a particular course or research project. Other collections are created to appeal to a wide audience (e.g. Library of Congress's American Memory Project). These collections are promoted in different ways, either on a highly local level to the direct intended community or to a wide net via listservs, press releases, and glitzy web sites. ut both kinds of collections are likely to have broader applications if they can find their users. In most libraries there seems to be something of a "build it and they will come" attitude toward digital collection curation. If we put this cool stuff up on the web, the thinking goes, users from around the world will find it and use it. Little effort is given to pushing the collections to targeted audiences or making sure there is general awareness of the new collections. It seems that the effort that goes into creating many digital collection drains the energy of the creators, so that promotion and outreach are an afterthought." (Education working group, Jay Satterfield, 4/1/2009)

"Considerations about digital content: 1. Origin---was the digital content developed by an institution or organization devoted to teaching and research? There can be a profound difference in the quality and accessibility of materials digitized by libraries, museums, for-profit organizations, scholarly organizations, or independent enthusiasts. There may need to be an educational component to outreach efforts to help users understand the implications of differing points of origin. 2. Price---often the best sources of digital content for the humanities come through for-profit providers. Many of these are extremely expensive and are only available to members of wealthy research institutions. A good example is Early English Books Online (EEBO), a tremendous source containing scanned page images of nearly every known published work in English from the beginning of printing to 1700. There are varying levels of access depending on institutional commitment to EEBO that affect its uses in the classroom and in research. Outreach programs must take into consideration that not all members of the community will have equal access to the resources. 3. Copyright---some resources will be protected by copyright that limits potential use and distribution. or some collections to be useful beyond the local level, copyright clearances would need to be obtained." (Education working group, Jay Satterfield, 4/1/2009)

"questions about Marketplace ... is it a thing, a website, an online service? What's in and what's out of Bamboo? Once that's clarified, the question of whether Local and Incubator deployment contexts ought to be separate or ought to be merged." (Shared Services working group, Program Document Sec 4 - Discussion Draft of 9 March 2009, 3/11/09 discussion notes)

"A point Steve said was raised by others was also raised here: where are the tools? Services usually underlie tools, tools are the actual interface. Not clear who provides and so on. The Marketplace could use more clarification." (Shared Services working group, Program Document Sec 4 - Discussion Draft of 9 March 2009, Elli Mylonas, 3/16/10 comment)

"The line between the humanities and the human sciences has always been fuzzy, with researchers across a wide spectrum of disciplines often documenting the same individuals and materials but with different outcomes in mind. The promise of the IT revolution is that sharing of data is not only easily shared but that it becomes possible to get credit for such "publishing." The problem for researchers, both those with materials already in hand and those in search of materials, is that there is no common infrastructure for sharing and searching. DATAstor will be that infrastructure. It is still early in the digitization efforts for researchers and archives who either currently maintain a collection or looking to develop one. Just as importantly, few of them have the kind of budget to develop infrastructure on their own. By providing an infrastructure that not only allows individuals and organizations to catalogue their materials but to make those materials accessible, DATAstor will become a common interface that will speed up the work of processing and analyzing documents and artifacts: 1) as scholars move from archive to archive, they will not have to learn "yet another interface", and; 2) archivists will spend less time training scholars to use their systems and more time working with collections — indeed, they may even be able to allow scholars to do some entry work for them, since the interface will be common to all." (Tools & Content Partners working group, DATAstor, 1/12/09)

"The contents of DATAstor will be materials collected by humanities field researchers, which can include, but is not limited to, the following: 1) oral texts: oral histories, myths, legends, anecdotes, jokes, songs, proverbs, dites, etc.; 2) material artifacts: houses, tools, boats, etc.; 3) performances: festivals, rituals, marketplace interactions. These materials will be available as entries within a database properly congregated by essential fields, such as those in the Dublin Core. Non-verbal artifacts will be described in text and will, I hope, be accompanied by a suitable recording: an audio recording of a story, an image of a house, the image of a hand-written letter drawn from a personal collection. Each entry will, I think, best be limited to a single artifact, however that may be described, e.g., one story from a longer conversation — and so there will need to be some way to indicate not only an item belonging to a larger collective but also if there is a sequence within that collective. Researchers will be able to search DATAstor through any parameter or across all parameters, of course, but one of the key things DATAstor will have to ensure is that there is a way to discern not only the original creator/performer of an item but the researcher who recorded or entered the item into the database." (Tools & Content Partners working group, DATAstor, 1/12/09)

"ARTstor does not itself house materials, in the sense of creating or owning collections, but simply acts as middleware between collections and subscribers. The quality of content available through ARTstor is dependent upon the extant quality review processes already in place, as is the case for materials found through JSTOR. DATAstor will, in order to assure the quality of its contents (and not simply be another Flickr), have to depend upon a similar set of relationships. There are a few databases already out there that have a peer-review process in place, e.g. the Child Language Data Exchange System (, but not a lot. One of the goals of DATAstor will be to develop an easy-to-deploy, open source database system that institutions and organizations can host. By developing the software for others to use and populate, DATAstor will be able to establish standards and conventions that will make its job as middleware a lot simpler and will, in the process, encourage the assessment of data creation and publication as a scholarly paradigm." (Tools & Content Partners working group, DATAstor, 1/12/09)

"Looking at content that's out there (libraries, internet archive, JStor, etc) - how can PB work together w/ those environments and make it easier for everyone to use that resource capability. Sometimes want to go between campuses - how can this help bridge the gaps? Trying to understand different layers on the page of a manuscript and help scholars. If you look at your own notes on your agenda, there's layers already (coffee stains, squiggles) - how can technology help with that?. Using image processing, separating out different layers of what's hopefully pigment characteristics in manuscript ink. One image: fun in Photoshop. 50k images: not fun in Photoshop, or killing a grad student." (W4, Overview of Program Document, Tool & Application alignment partnerships)

"Preservation and continuity issues; something like Flickr - wonderful access mechanism that people confuse with a permanent storage method." (W4, Program Document Section 3, Discussion of Poll #1, Faculty table discussion)

"Focused on opportunities/question about whether Bamboo is going to lead to opening up of commercial content for scholarly purposes. Responding to practical suggestion about JStor - good example. If university doesn't have subscription, not much good." (W4, Section 4 Table Discussion)

"The success of the content interoperability model will be measured by the degree to which it reduces friction and lowers barriers to content access, transport (if needed), and readiness for scholarly use, analysis, synthesis, and sensemaking. Specific qualities that Bamboo needs to promulgate here include:
-Coherent end-user access experience, with openness to centralized, decentralized, and hybrid repository approaches on the backend
-Full leveraging, and further coordination of instantiated repositories (note: there are questions about whether it is necessary or wise for Bamboo to build out discovery services)
-Versatility of format concerns (text, images, audio, video)
-Standardized data formats
-Content/data that is available or packaged in the way that it is needed (e.g., viewing, extraction, computational access, etc.)
-Access security through cross-institutional authentication model
-Well-understood rights/permissions framework" (W4 Action Plan - 4.5 Content Interoperability Partnerships)

"Reflection of scholars coming to this and wanting access to resources" (W4, Discussion of Section 3 and Section 4 Poll #2)

"Forming partnerships w/ content providers, search/support services - this is key piece." (W4 Action Plan - 4.5 Content Interoperability Partnerships, discussion)
"A lot of discussion around the Atlas - talking about these different kinds of connections that can be made, not just registering connections and uses but looking at it as a way of revealing practice being a learning tool. Real uses of information Atlas contains." (W5, Overview: Major Areas of Work)

"Interesting model: taxonomy on local campuses for where faculty are. 4 categories (not only/best way, but interesting): faculty who are heavy users of digital tech, 2) faculty who are using it but less extensively, 3) not really using tech but have some interest/want to know more, 4) skeptical. If you're going to make a strategic investment, which group to put emphasis on? #1 or #4 not the best place; maybe #3 - some interest but not doing much, but maybe more in #2 - people who are doing some, but can go the next step to be exemplars and share with others. What's the right model for shaping a greater level for faculty engagement on campus? 5-8+ institutions: major thing is bringing in individual faculty or digital humanities projects and use those to populate Atlas" (W5, Overview: Major Areas of Work)

"Leveraging intelligence of community, enough people to get network effects for content ... Taking advantage of community in different forms. "Which concrete projects/partners, in which areas?"" (W5, Overview: Major Areas of Work)

"People who want to go further in more sophisticated forms of analysis around scholarly practice data - research, also, what success really means, how to do formative evaluation." (W5, Overview: Major Areas of Work)

"Started out with general concerns in new formulation of what was included in Atlas. Specifically: inclusion of education/pedagogy - needs to be more deeply embedded. Proposal needs to more directly discuss arts. Focused on three questions: clear enough? right deliverables? didn't get to success. Description wasn't clear enough for the Atlas. Long discussion initiated by Janet about what the Atlas was. After some "feeling around on the elephant", common conclusion about what it was. Many things to many people. Now envisioned as supporting scholars in scholarship - "what tools are there?" Supporting development of tools within Bamboo. There to support study of scholarly practice and see changes that are happening. Atlas has a lot on its table." (W5, Report out: Major Areas of Work, Atlas)

"Build deliverables - some concern about it, but discussion moved to "are there other tools out there (content management, networking tools) that would have same function?" David discussed tool developed at UVA - a lot of the functionality that we might be looking for." (W5, Report out: Major Areas of Work, Atlas)

"Social network repository of tools, go from a tool to see who's developing, etc. Different points of access - need to have multiple for people to find the materials. Usage scenarios - search, tag, etc. Ontologies, tag clouds - people, projects, organizations > the technologies and tools they use. Incentivize it - not becoming a detritus of lost momentum. Importance of data use within people's own content management systems, etc. Making it into an engine, web service APIs, etc. Importance of people being able to put community-specific info in, concealed from others. Extract portions of the atlas. Mining/curation - ingesting existing data. Curation: post-mining, post-submission, so curator isn't in the way of material being generated. At UVA, working on creating something like this using Ruby on Rails. Follows these kind of Bamboo principles (service architecture, web service APIs, etc)." (W5, Report out: Major Areas of Work, Atlas)

Q: "In principle, that's fine (in the context of 6-8 year project). But not 1-2 year. Group needs to do more work to select and focus on what to do in 1-2 years. Current plan has parts that are too vague." David Greenbaum: "Need to push harder on which of a broad range of elements are most important for first years. Hearing some of the questions that have to tease out, relationship between atlas and scholarly networking." (W5, Report out: Major Areas of Work, Atlas)

"Comment from John Wolffe who's listening on-line: worried that Atlas group is biting off more it can chew; further thoughts about incentivizing contributions? Had a lot of discussion about incentives." (W5, Report out: Major Areas of Work, Atlas)

Q: "Notion of recipes/instruction assumes there's food/tools elsewhere; is the food (content) and tools part of Atlas, or is it being deeloped by Service Platform? Connecting pre-existing things?" David Greenbaum: "To extend cookbook further, Atlas is a lot of info about what to do in a kitchen, but when you open a cookbook you don't find either the ingredients or tools in there; tools/content aren't in the Atlas, but pointers to them, discussions, etc. In Services Platform, expect to get to a point where the platform exposes services that would be used; tied to content, which exists in distribtued world, managed in various places. In the future, some of that content is stored in the Cloud too, but mixing cloud and recipe metaphors is probably a mistake." (W5, Report out: Major Areas of Work, Atlas)

Q: "When people are talking content, there's different kinds. One is content that might exist in repositories or existing content that can be shared. Other is individual researcher's creation that they need to put into processin. Separate kind of things, one can relate to another, haven't distinguished between them. When people are asking about content, some are meaning "are we going to have Great Repositories", but PB probably isn't going to make them, but just provide ways to access; other content is what the users will be putting in." David Greenbaum: "Using content loosely; Atlas will be the holder of community content (descriptions, annotation, markup, metadata, tags, whatever) but not the same thing as a digital library of archaeology." (W5, Report out: Major Areas of Work, Atlas)

Q: "Still confused. Wiki now used for artifact capturing (Atlas), another is some crude level of networking (Networking), so why do we need something separate?" Chad Kainz: "Space we need to use to run our projects, share documents/materials/etc, we have Confluence for that, it's arguably inadequate for that. Need to do something in that space anyways. As the Atlas comes up, as different services come up, as gadgets come up, our environment that we use to conduct our own work and communicate value to the world, share press releases, etc. What does today, should be able to consume everything that we build. Won't be able to consume the Atlas on day 1, because it won't exist yet. Tech selection process (plan stage) - coming together w/ people really interested in services platform, atlas - what tech choices do we need to make now that are reasonable, so our environment will hopefully be able to consume materials we create. Demonstrates how you can reuse different components. Demonstrate the values we believe in." (W5, Report out: Major Areas of Work)

"Wanted to give a history of that-- some people talking about the Atlas, big word on the tag cloud; remember the Atlas came from something called a Roadmap. There was a "wedding cake" that didn't go over well, workshop 2 was scholarly narratives, workshop 3 was recipes, and this is a whole spectrum of a different levels of description for "requirements analysis". How do we provide requirements analysis? "Waterfall model". Phrase "community design" in original proposal. Community involved in the whole DESIGN, not just requirements analysis." (W5, blog report on Atlas and community design, Worthy Martin)

"Hard to say what the value is of a thing we don't know, we don't know the thing until we know the value. Had people who wanted to talk about value of atlas that includes things like helping IT people understand range of scholarly practice. Value in looking at growing communities w/in a campus that are cross-role. Like Bamboo participation includes participation from many areas of the campus. Ability for faculty to figure out what's available, what's already built, who's the peer community doing this, to connect with people and tools, find digitized content that's relevant, explanations of how content has been made accessible to tools that might be interesting." (W5, Open Discussion: Major Areas of Work, Atlas)

"How methods of scholarship can be citable by being included in the Atlas. Can be found by practitioners who are used to following citations." (W5, Open Discussion: Major Areas of Work, Atlas)

"Question of content - content interoperability partnership was centered in Bamboo Services Platform discussion, but quite a lot of talk about centrality and role of content in Atlas, how partnerships with content stewards play into Atlas." (W5, Open Discussion: Major Areas of Work, Atlas)

"Partial list of incentives, others mentioned a few others. List of incentives for contributing: content, or tools, moreso than narratives, but could extend to narratives. Reciprocal access - by being "in" and providing stuff, there's reciprocation. Automatic advertising for your stuff. Visible to anybody, but could be more proactive advertising - Amazon books model "you might be interested in..." Can get info sent back automatically-- "remember looking for X? Someone's made it". Mechanism for providing stable citation for works you contribute. This then places a normal scholarly obligation on anyone loading your stuff to cite you for it in a normal way. That visibility is something people worry about; atlas might offer a mechanism for resolving that. Not all institutions give enough credit to non-text non-print works like this, but culture is starting to change and this will help. 4th incentive: because people go to Atlas for work rather than directly peer-to-peer, site itself can accumulate info and metrics, who's looking for what, rating mechanism to enable comments, that helps to validate and add measures of quality to your work. Promotion of common, fostering of common standards. Essential part of mechanism for doing that. Requiring submitted material to be conformant with standards." (W5, Open Discussion: Major Areas of Work, Atlas)

"Idea of credentializing - Bamboo Seal of Approval. This would then have some benefit at some point. Martin talked about that might be an incentive that the product goes through the interoperability phases, working out the kinks. Way of bringing back institutional incentive to do documentation beyond what they'd otherwise do. Relatedly, idea is that there will evolve to a certain extent an authority associated with Bamboo as it develops. Authority, so if one is giving ratings, this will be recognized widely as being responsible and responsive to a wider community. If you want to formalize those things further, may well think of creating some kind of journal (whatever the format would be) in which you could have a peer review process. This would then provide an incentive. This would also provide mechanism that could be a form of outreach/promotion of Bamboo." (W5, Open Discussion: Major Areas of Work, Atlas, Worthy Martin)

"One idea that was floating around in tools/data-driven scholarship workshop: running tool contests. Wouldn't take much money, could incentivize building, would get Bamboo's name out. Part of a larger effort that PB needs to create cultural capital for itself. Contests, fellowships, would be out there in competitive ways that would help to build that kind of cultural capital." (W5, Open Discussion: Major Areas of Work, Atlas, Neil Fraistat)

Q: "When we have info about recipes, narratives, etc and delivering into existing environments, this is hooks whereby people can search directly? Also, where does the data live? How does it connect to other places the info might be?" David Greenbaum: "Potential data re: people and projects - something that could be IN the atlas as well; that data does exist in a number of places, including in each of our institutions' local systems to track faculty research interests, work, etc. Enter data once, use it in multiple places; but detail needs to be figured out. In the atlas description, a lot of work re: data and data model and APIs but on top of that, various interfaces (that could be developed for Bamboo, to connect to other environments). Reformulation of scholarly network area - pull out, tear off work around interfaces and connection to other environments, put that here. Unique Bamboo front-end, and also interconnecting and playing in other environments, information going in multiple directions. Can we make it as easy as possible to capture data in other environments for the Atlas." (W5, Preliminary Vote: Major Areas of Work, Q&A)

"Sticking w/ Bamboo philosophy of "link, don't copy" - hope is that it's a list of data that does live elsewhere; links to institutional repositories, rather than trying to harvest." (W5, Preliminary Vote: Major Areas of Work, Kaylea Champion)

Q: "If we take it as a given that a front end embedded w/in a social environment like Facebook will not deliver full functionality as the actual Atlas site... true? If that's a given, why do it at all? Why not just use the actual site? A lot of effort will be put into Facebook apps, Sakai modules, Blackboard modules, etc. Some degree of convenience, but it will be a short Google search away to go to the actual Atlas site. Maybe there won't be an actual Atlas site, but a high-level repository, and these will be your points of entry, but I don't think we've conceived of the atlas that way. Also, would it be possible, or did the group think about extending the kinds of virtual environments listed here into things like portals, Vivo at Cornell (directory of faculty and related research interest labs, resources, etc). Or is emphasis squarely on more socially oriented networking sites?" Chad Kainz: "Have to keep in mind, Bamboo intends to fit in to where people are working, not stand out. Examples here, Sakai/Facebook/Ning, could be anything else. Different encivornments where people are already conducting work, how can people come to them? We can build all this capability to have a super-use of the atlas-- need for engineering purposes if nothing else. But content inside of atlas, services/capabilities developed over time, need to be able to be represented in ways that make sense for context of use and communities they're being used by. Don't always need all the info of the atlas, may only want small piece that connects relationships together. Maintaining that principle from the original scholarly networking group. The nod to websites is the all-encompassing front end of THE ATLAS, but the idea of one ore more different types of connecting, re-enforces ability of what Bamboo does, brings it to different environments. Proposal is that insofar as there's an actual Atlas Site, scholarly networking would include the creation of that site as part of their portfolio. Same people focused on "how do scholars want to see this where they already live" would also focus on "what do they want if they come to us"? Don't have to be on a network to see this content. People who think about people would all get together" (W5, Preliminary Vote: Major Areas of Work, Q&A)

Q: "Yesterday mentioned open source video platform; one of great selling points was way it integrated w/ learning management systems, Wordpress, Drupal - not something Bamboo itself has to pay for. If university has a big buy into a given system, if Bamboo can publish the way to bridge it in, a university might pay for it and share code back. People working in Sakai environment don't even need to know there's an Atlas site, it just has what they want." (W5, Preliminary Vote: Major Areas of Work, Q&A)

"All the data and data models and how we capture all that, that's stored in the Atlas as a data store. The idea behind the Atlas is that it'd be well developed such that data could be exposed in all sorts of different places. Including being able to interoperate. We have put some of that front-end work around the Atlas into the Atlas section. AT the same time, in scholarly networking section, this has to do w/ connection to social networking sites. Now it puts aside the focus on social networking, thinking just the places were we do work on the web (whatever that is), and all the work here re: how to connect Atlas information, and the unique views or interfaces built in our own web presence, handled through this kind of focus." (W5, Preliminary Vote: Major Areas of Work, David Greenbaum)

"[Results of vote] Atlas: 41 yes, 8 abstain" (W5, Preliminary Vote: Major Areas of Work)

"My name is John Coleman, and I'm an abstainer. I thought of being a no, but I thought that was unfair. Direction of Bamboo Atlas is fine, but I have big reservations about the scope, both as it was described in original document and fear discussions haven't narrowed scope at all." (W5, Preliminary Vote: Major Areas of Work)

"I'm also an abstainer; when you're reading texts or doing markup, when you find a place that doesn't make sense, it's a place of interest but also a place where if you slice/dice differently, problem goes away. Atlas is a confusing chunk - what's in it, what does it do, trying to tease it out, etc. Not clear exactly what the atlas does; pieces of it that one has associated with it are useful. Not trying to eliminate what it's doing. But might make it cleaner to take pieces of Atlas (esp. ones that have to do with Bamboo users) and move to scholarly networking, and rename the whole thing. Take parts related to services/tools/work, move into services -> 2 areas of effort. Throwing it out as a way of thinking about these things differently. Another abstainer: didn't consider saying no, abstained because I didn't feel I understood clearly enough what the scope of the Atlas was. Definitely bits in there that sound useful and good, but the other point is that the Atlas is the bit that can easily be successful or not depending on uptake; seen other projects trying to do things in UK scope, spent lots of effort, put up some content, there's some stuff but they don't have a feeling of life, would be easy if the Atlas isn't done right, to be in the same position. Don't see enough to be able to say, success or not." (W5, Preliminary Vote: Major Areas of Work)

"Most institutions wanted to be involved in Atlas. Atlas does have one of biggest risks of failure - insufficient continued use re: adding content, adding interpretations. Wouldn't want Bamboo to be see as the Atlas, and Atlas failure = Bamboo failure. Aware of both opportunity and making sure it's scoped well and can succeed from start." (W5, Preliminary Vote: Major Areas of Work)

Q: "Voted yes for some of those reasons, but put a comment: grave reservations about scope. I think you hear that already - that really has to be addressed." (W5, Preliminary Vote: Major Areas of Work)

Abstainer: "Lack of scope that was disquieting here, wonder whether Atlas and Scholarly Networking should be combined to have more focus. If that's not a decision out of this workshop, maybe that topic should be reviewed in 3-6 months." (W5, Preliminary Vote: Major Areas of Work)

Abstainer: "Others told me to abstain. I asked, "if I wanted to say, how many editions of Hamlet are there? How much stuff has to do with Cairo in collections aggregated in Bamboo? And that's the most important question to me, what do we know about topic X? That's not in the Atlas because it's too big, but it should be SOMEWHERE - huge problem as you scale up and try to make it attractive". Should be somewhere in Bamboo, don't know where it falls." (W5, Preliminary Vote: Major Areas of Work)

Q: "One way of addressing scope concerns for Atlas - let's not call it something that has a life beyond 1-3 years, let's call it a report. A closed thing, and a done thing. No such reports out there that would cover what the Atlas seeks to do." (W5, Preliminary Vote: Major Areas of Work)

Abstainer: "One of my issues - somewhere between W3 and now, Atlas moved from facilitative function to support the design, to being a resource in and of itself. That's not a bad thing, but that's part of the problem we're having getting our heads around it. It's morphed, but it's bigger and stakes are higher. Real problem w/ how scholarly networking and atlas are now structured. How will they be administered, breaking it up like this? Couldn't get head around administrative piece - if Atlas people and scholarly networking people aren't together... you guys are the deciders of who wins? Unworkable splitting." (W5, Preliminary Vote: Major Areas of Work)

Q: Helpful to visualize what you actually enter when PB is up and running. If you open something, and it's a scholarly networking thing, you're opening and leaving it almost immediately - it's this process where PB is evaluating, giving sense of direction, having some way of entering something that the community is directing towards its needs and sense of a future. That's where you need to have this particular separation. It's not an index of what's available, it's something that's worked on; working on centrally rather than diffuse network that requires that distinction." (W5, Preliminary Vote: Major Areas of Work)

Q: A lot of people have problems with Atlas scope - not just how it interacts w/ the other parts of Bamboo, more important problem of scope is what kind of registries and catalogs is the Atlas going to include? It's going to get out of date. If we try to make a way of aggregating all info of interest, it's going to be incomplete, arbitrary, and out of date. Need to define scope of the information that's in the Atlas - what info will we aggregate and make visible here? Information should be on one hand info about Bamboo services. Can include from other existing catalogs and resource discovery services. Trying to make our own registries and lists of stuff that might be of interest is where we'll get into problems." (W5, Preliminary Vote: Major Areas of Work)

Abstainer: "It's what all the cool kids are doing." We're becoming layered in terms of services, what Atlas is, scholarly networking as interface-- don't know if that's where we were going, at least, there was a different thrust for scholarly networking and atlas. Were going to be things we'd develop to solve problems in the humanities. Being conflated in some ways that I'm having a hard time understanding. A lot of things I see as being in the Atlas, but saying that scholarly networking is almost the interface to the Atlas, I don't see it that way. Scope of Atlas for this project is a scope that's more bounded, doesn't come out as a clear "how to do it" but a more bounded scope, what is PB doing, what are we staring to explore and plan for future building? Ongoing life to things being stored there, actively being used/stored/planned/built. A registry is a hard thing to avoid. That's not a good thing. But if it's the things that are actively being pursued by the community, that'd be good." (W5, Preliminary Vote: Major Areas of Work)

"Going to have an Atlas demonstrator to happen this fall; if we do that, we may take some of these concerns and issues and tease them out and focus the scope and challenges to build on that. There are elements that are important, but questions of which elements, and how to do them so they don't fall flat for the future." (W5, Preliminary Vote: Major Areas of Work, David Greenbaum)

"A demonstrator project that is aimed at fleshing out more concretely and less conceptually what we mean by Atlas. Way to think about this at this point: idea of PB atlas as appropriately narrowing scope talked about earlier. Don't want to reprise W4 presentation, but we've talked about a deep and structured understanding of humanities practice, from the beginning of project. Got to a point where we think that there are more or less a set of elements/entities that can describe what technologists and what scholars mean and librarians, and so forth. Pieces and perspectives from which practices can be understood. Concept of Atlas - take those elements, take facility for decorating them with metadata, what's the value/meaning/rating/expert's evaluation/community uptake. All definitions of the elements that we've talked about. Talked more about scholarly methodology than shared tech services. Kinds of interactions - rating and reviewing, contributing, categorizing, etc. Doing this as individuals, communities of interest, etc. Search and discovery. What we haven't done is going from conceptual model to asking "if this thing existed, how would you approach it?" In doing demonstrator, asking those questions. What would the deliverables be? Part is design, grounded in consultation. Includes at least some well-curated seed content. Right now on wiki is around 60 narratives, 90 activities, very few recipes. Very little connection/analysis. We have some curation that needs doing. Demonstrator = actually works (working services, a test-drive interface). What would each of those things look like? Caveat that this is a proposal for a demonstrator, needs to be shaped by participation of people who would be interested. Put out in a number of e-mails leading up to this - after this agenda is done, there's another meeting to talk about this demonstrator project. That meeting could completely reshape it." (W5, Bamboo Atlas Demonstrator, Steve Masover)

"Four deliverables can be thought of as four quasi-independent but related strands of work. Deliverable 1 - design grounded in careful consultation. User-centered design (cf Fluid). Looking at candidate interfaces - how would a person use a particular service? Consult with diverse stakeholders-- scholars, librarians, comp scientists, technologists. Probably not true that each will want to approach in same way. Have to ask many different kinds of people how they'd open the atlas. Figure out necessary interfaces. Consider full range of uses that might come up. Different people will be looking for different things. Data mining one's own publications, find what matches it in some way. Stuff that requires this particular markup. Best practice in rating. Want to consult with potential users - is this way of showing ratings useful to you? Best practice in algorithmic search. Best practice in citation and referral. Don't want to get stuck building a working interface for each type - can handle this by using wireframes. Sketch something up. Can literally have pieces of paper that you shuffle around. Can literally be hand-drawn sketches. Deliverable #2 - solid body of well-curated "seed" content. We have some materials already; needs curation/analysis. Focus on depth rather than breadth. Focus on 1-2 small areas, a well-curated body of content related to that. Right now, curation going on -- deepening Atlas linkages. Grad student from Berkeley information school, looking through sets of narratives. Decomposing narratives into steps, forming recipes specific to narratives out of those steps. Then trying to extrapolate some additional possible recipes based on what can be generalized. Generalized recipes -- taking specific steps, looking at recipes that'd apply to several narratives at once. This isn't the be-all, end-all analysis. What would it mean for that to be a strand of work? Gathering additional content, esp if we decide to focus on a disciplinary area with some gaps in the wiki. Deliverable #3: something that works. One could be building some services that deliver limited/core functionality: model and implement. Alternative: look at something out in the world, do some modeling exercises, see how what we think we need matches w/ something that's already been built. Fathom project. Look at project going on at UVA developed w/ a distant eye on what's going on in Bamboo. See whether that can be a part of our working demonstrator. Thinking about things that would be in Atlas, interactions/activities one'd want to do with those things. Entity relationship diagram - narrative > recipes > (activity, tool reference, content reference). Narratives and recipes have a relationship, and there's metadata/meaning associated w/ these things. Reviews, ratings along various spectra, tags, other annotations. Might approach from engineering-model idea. There's metadata on relationships, too. Rating or reviewing relationships-- doesn't really relate, exactly on the mark, etc. #4 - Working Atlas-demo "test drive" interface, beyond wireframes, something the community can test-drive and provide feedback. Timeframe. Series of "sprints". Whatever work we do, esp if in parallel strands, will be divided into short periods w/ defined goals. Align the strands between those period. Delivering proposal will take a fair amount of bandwidth; may not start until August, shorter sprints. Might start even well into the fall. Maybe spill over in January if implementation won't start until Feb. Can figure out over the summer. Depends on who wants to participate, how, what resources, etc. Chicago and Berkeley will participate. Atlas-focused Bamboo institutions. May be enthusiastic community members, regardless of institutional interest." (W5, Bamboo Atlas Demonstrator, Steve Masover)

Q: "Talking about Atlas as interface, but after change re: Scholarly Network doing interface, does that change?" Steve Masover: "Doesn't matter what area of Bamboo delivers it, trying to get at, if you as a user were to approach this, what would it look like (wherever you do it)? A services API isn't so useful for end-users. Services behind those interfaces." (W5, Bamboo Atlas Demonstrator)

"Putting a plug in for this project - sustained energy from April to now, might fall off if we don't have something to keep ourselves busy with. Concrete, way to carry momentum. Primes us well for January. Good way to test out theory we've thrown around for a year, get us started." (W5, Bamboo Atlas Demonstrator, Jim Muehlenberg)

"Key point on depth vs breadth. Edited/curatorial approach. Hopefully will address scope concerns. Not The Place for all X tools. That's not sustainable/possible. Still worried about relationship of this work to the way scholarly narratives are being conceived. I voted no on the current conception of scholarly network. Worry about the ability we'll have to aggregate important work you pointed out in one place. If I'm in Blackboard/Facebook/etc and have a view on the Atlas, and want to rate something, not clear that Sakai/Facebook/etc will allow that rating to migrate to another virtual environment. Maybe some fragmentation is ok - local rating/comments, and global. Different lenses will provide different views onto same thing. Tech challenges of making it work w/ scholarly networking vision as stated, that's significant. Worried about scholarly networking, not atlas." (W5, Bamboo Atlas Demonstrator, Arno Bosse)

Q: "Less idea of why anyone would do any of this, right now, than this morning. What's the connection between what happens here and teaching/research. This has been going on for a year - would expect that analysis of what people were writing, doing, etc be done by now. Don't have anything I can take to anyone and explain why it's compelling to do right now. We don't have "this is what it's going to do in a time of crisis". We don't have "this will re-invent education". I'm here because I have a vision, and this is fine, but you're missing the starting point. What would I tell people they were getting?" (W5, Bamboo Atlas Demonstrator)

"1/4 of workshop turned out for after-after-after meeting. 13 attendees, 3 people came up but couldn't make the meeting. Of 13, 6 were faculty, 5 of them humanities. Discussion of what the Atlas is, what its nature is. Zeroed in on various threads of demonstrator work that I laid out, are there other strands of work? What folks are interested in, able to work on. Oxford already engaged in a similar kind of work w/in their own institution; part of their interest is specifically to make sure that they're not running parallel, incompatible work. So outcomes can be merged. Of 4 strands, 4 participants interested in working in user-centered design, a lot of interest in curated atlas content (8), working services/user interface (3/2), Berkeley and Chicago not represented at the meeting, but we figure Chicago will be in that effort somehow (throw in 1 in various places), and an additional strand of work: question of incentives. A number of people have raised the issue; that's a serious question/problem/consideration that we have to provide for. A couple people interested in working on that in the fall. Now going to create a mailing list for people who expressed interest. Program staff will take a couple steps back, consider/consult w/ leadership council re: how/when best way to move forward." (W5, Bamboo Atlas Demonstrator follow-up)

Q: "Who's the primary audience for the demonstrators? Is it ourselves?" David Greenbaum: "Part of reason is the audience is ourselves-- we want to get ready, hone what the work is and how we'll do it, how we'll do it together, what to avoid-- don't want lag period between now and January. Refining some of ideas around atlas/scholarly networking as we submit proposal; demonstrator feeds into that and allows us to move ahead. Can also be others who we may be recruiting on campuses to help us define/refine what this looks like. You want to bring your digital humanities faculty; we want feedback re: what's valuable for coming into the Atlas." Chad Kainz: "One of important things we need to do is get a better handle on ideas in Atlas, don't burn a lot of time in January (4-5 months out of 12) figuring this out. Getting questions on the table, looked at, played with, so we can hit the ground running in January." Steve Masover: "Demonstrator is a word we've been using for this kind of project all the way through, but looking at what's a demonstrator here as a pre-implementation phase start on work we hope to do." (W5, Bamboo Atlas Demonstrator follow-up)

Arno Bosse: "Very helpful to have something even as a mock-up to look at. Unenviable position of having the "concrete" instantiation of what PB is -- this leads to new questions and doubts, but it's important that we have it. Important that we have a scholarly networking demonstrator. I'm concerned about that; doesn't make much sense to me right now as stated, but that's because we haven't drilled down the details. Hard to do shared services platform demonstrator, but we need to figure out infrastructure, refactoring, applications/services/tools." David Greenbaum: "Right after workshop, going to look at info re: scholarly networking and atlas, trying to figure out how to align/frame that. Also want to talk about other potential demonstrators. May be another demonstrator out of scholarly networking; do have some ideas on services platform re: work that can happen in fall, just haven't talked about it that much. Very important to do some work - one thought is beginning some of the architectural whitepapering and discussion re: elements of the platform re: what it looks like for services to sit on that, characteristics of services, characteristics of appliance." (W5, Bamboo Atlas Demonstrator follow-up)

Q: "Would be nice to figure out how to use that structure to expose some content in places where might not be otherwise available. Possible content repositories useful w/ annotation systems, web presentations, etc." (W5, Bamboo Atlas Demonstrator follow-up)

Q: "Demonstrating value on campus - show us how to run it. Drive forward getting proposal done, getting people's help from that." David Greenbaum: "Doing all we can to ask a number of participants to lead early pieces of work, esp July-October. After mid-October, program staff time gets a little relief." (W5, Bamboo Atlas Demonstrator follow-up)

"If we keep our eye on the question "how does someone coming to this use it, learn from it, contribute to it, get something out of it, explain what they need, reach out for help, give help to others", if we keep thinking about all the ways in which individuals/groups of individuals are going to be a part of this, be part of a community that is aimed at lifting those who work in A&H, enabling them to do things they can't do right now. If we keep our eye on that, we'll be fine. That is one of the ways of orienting ourselves to a number of complex questions. If we keep that perspective before us, will get all the way to the finish line. But the finish line is just the start of something that we hope will sustain itself over a period of many years." (W5, closing remarks, Janet Broughton)

Bamboo tags: 

Add new comment