Project Bamboo wiki: W4 - Action Plans

This was originally posted to the Project Bamboo wiki at <a href="https://wiki.projectbamboo.org/display/BPUB/W4+-+Action+Plans">https://wiki.projectbamboo.org/display/BPUB/W4+-+Action+Plans</a> (<a href="https://wiki.projectbamboo.org/x/aACV">https://wiki.projectbamboo.org/x/aACV</a>), last modified 20 April 2009. <ul> <li><a href="#W4-ActionPlans-Discussion">Discussion</a></li> <ul> <li><a href="#W4-ActionPlans-Scholarlynetworking">Scholarly networking</a></li> <li><a href="#W4-ActionPlans-ScholarlyNarratives">Scholarly Narratives</a></li> <li><a href="#W4-ActionPlans-Recipes">Recipes</a></li> <li><a href="#W4-ActionPlans-ToolandContentGuide-noonecame">Tool and Content Guide - no one came</a></li> <li><a href="#W4-ActionPlans-Education">Education</a></li> <li><a href="#W4-ActionPlans-ServicesAtlas">Services Atlas</a></li> <li><a href="#W4-ActionPlans-BambooExchange">Bamboo Exchange</a></li> <li><a href="#W4-ActionPlans-SharedServices">Shared Services</a></li> <li><a href="#W4-ActionPlans-ToolandApplicationAlignmentPartnerships">Tool and Application Alignment Partnerships</a></li> <li><a href="#W4-ActionPlans-Contentinteroperabilitypartnerships">Content interoperability & partnerships</a></li> </ul> </ul>

<h1 id="W4-ActionPlans-Discussion">Discussion</h1> <h2 id="W4-ActionPlans-Scholarlynetworking">Scholarly networking</h2> <ul> <li>Interested in scholarly society participation</li> <li>Plan going forward: signing up institutions/societies to do some work</li> <li>Over a 3-year cycle</li> <li>4-5 institutions wanted a leadership role</li> <li>Q: Was preference for disciplines to do interdisciplinary work?</li> <li>Or easiest/quickest way to get going is to go across universities?</li> <li>A: A lot of discussion</li> <li>Not restricting it to disciplines chosen to start with</li> <li>Was one possibility of 3 societies that want to do something now</li> <li>Several institutions want to do something now</li> <li>That could be enough to get started</li> </ul> <h2 id="W4-ActionPlans-ScholarlyNarratives">Scholarly Narratives</h2> <ul> <li>Most important: finding success stories, make available as recipes</li> <li>Also make them available in terms of materials for things like communicating w/ deans</li> <li>Tip of the iceberg kind of moment; potential for various kinds of infrastructure</li> </ul> <h2 id="W4-ActionPlans-Recipes">Recipes</h2> <ul> <li>Plan -= create selection process for choosing narratives to focus on</li> <li>Selection of tools</li> <li>Has a visualization - will post after break</li> <li>Need to be using visualization tools for what's in the narratives, what'd be in the recipes</li> <li>How recipes would be used in different narratives</li> <li>A number of visualizations exist - one that there already existed shows patterns, how different descriptions can use same terminology</li> <li>Example that we're looking at showing - "I need to do this", "I need this" - we'd see a tree of the various different things</li> <li>Narratives and recipes on one level, but dependent on each other so there's very specific kinds of narratives that work if we have specific core building</li> <li>Those narratives/recipes are focused on that core in the first year</li> <li>Longer timeline for recipes: more general and generic things that can be visualized, collected at large</li> <li>For this: thinking in year 1, a proof of concept of Bamboo, there needs to be a lot of dependencies</li> <li>DAG: Dependency connection between narratives and recipes</li> <li>What we do in year 1/2, elsewhere in cloud, this could be a source of seeds for this</li> <li>Made a quick decision to leave these sections separate, even though there's ties and connections</li> <li>Inerconnection w/ service atlas, too </li> <li>One last point: Haven't talked abut audiences</li> <li>Talking about recipes in general - need to be focused on audience, who will be following this</li> <li>May have to be multi-dimensional; may have to be version of recipe for tech person</li> <li>Building certain kinds of things for a scholar in general</li> <li>Audience hasn't really entered into consideration</li> <li>DAG: A little discussion re: data model that exists behind recies/narratives</li> <li>A fair amount of discussion - some people like "Recipes" , some like "Workflows"</li> <li>"Cookbook" of recipes? - different kinds of cookbooks for different situations </li> <li><a href="http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/visualizations/twitter-i-need-to-___" class="external-link" rel="nofollow">ManyEyes visualization</a> - doesn't need a lot of talking</li> <li>"I need to... get/go/do/find/be/stop/start/make/see/know/take/learn/be" - can scroll through the entire tree</li> <li>Sitting on top of Twitter feeds, and organizing them</li> <li>Can collect any number of narratives</li> <li>Some quirks n using ManyEyes - we could probably build a visuzation tool that would be better suited</li> <li>*DAG: We build models for a lot of data, and harvest it in a variety of ways</li> </ul> <h2 id="W4-ActionPlans-ToolandContentGuide-noonecame">Tool and Content Guide - no one came</h2> <ul> <li>DAG: certain amount of interest, no one wanted to take leadership</li> </ul> <h2 id="W4-ActionPlans-Education">Education</h2> <ul> <li>Wide-ranging discussion, came up with principles to form background of education</li> <li>Should have a dynamic interface that connects research/teaching materials and brings them together</li> <li>Also, a selectively curated set of examples</li> <li>Dependencies / overlaps w/ narratives</li> <li>Visualization/relationships are important</li> <li>Also important: break down some false dichotomies between research and teaching</li> <li>For first year: start by beginning to select some sample projects, other things to highlight as models for what we want to do</li> <li>Start talking with other groups to look for overlap and dependencies</li> <li>Year two: Assessment and analysis of kinds of material from first year</li> <li>Education technology organizations have research</li> <li>Were aware that there's already sites that list syllabi and assignments</li> <li>A lot of relationships w/ other tools</li> <li>Went broad with the qualities rather than saying "every Digital Hum syllabus that's ever been used" - that's impossible </li> <li>DAG: False dichotomy came up a lot</li> <li>For a lot of places, there's a teaching focus that's important</li> <li>Feeding into narratives/recipes piece</li> <li>Concrete ways to deal w/ points that were made here; do we have a separate part of PB around this, or do we try to pull this out of other working groups?</li> <li>Is this a labeling/naming issue, too?</li> <li>There's something fundamental here, how do we appropriately structure this into short/long term </li> <li>We had some of the same questions, but not strong answers</li> <li>Scholarly narratives - selected in first year; should be able to be looked at through educational lens</li> <li>How/what kind of tool, way of looking at things; ways to focus/highlight how education works, what role education plays</li> <li>Pedagogical problems need to be identified to get a start on things</li> <li>How we do this - ? </li> <li>Took qualitative approach to PB concepts</li> <li>Providing a front 'age that will create a certain amount of enthusiasm for Hum scholars who aren't involved</li> <li>First year goal: related to syllabus project</li> <li>Scalability - developing that kind of tool, making syllabi more digital enhanced/friendly</li> <li>Dealing w/ more advanced projects in DigHum; demonstrating range within DigHum</li> <li>Facilitating more meta-critical awareness of digital culture/schools</li> <li>Very much enhanced what it means to Hum scholars in particular</li> <li>Feed back into Hum tradition </li> <li>Tried to define ways in which articulating relationship of education to teaching</li> <li>Create cyberinfrasturcture for research - undergrads can use too</li> <li>Also, just mentioned, a meta-reflection on how we represent ourselves digitally</li> <li>Ability/capacity in moving to digital environment; raising specific question of representing discipline</li> <li>If system is well-designed to get new/unique data, raises discipline specific questions</li> <li>Teaching -> advancing disciplinary conversations</li> <li>Nice to model, bring to the front </li> <li>Education needs to be fundamentally up front</li> <li>On the front page, we don't have opposition between research/education</li> <li>Facilitating that relationship</li> <li>What we'd be producing: students using technologies used in Hum research</li> <li>Researchers need to communicate to students</li> <li>Bringing this to the front page </li> <li>Teaching on two timelines: timeline 1 -proof of concept</li> <li>Teaching resources focused on core tools/content</li> <li>"Bamboo verbs" </li> <li>DAG: A number of suggestions around the way in which we can have views of visualization centered around teaching/research piece layered together</li> <li>Abstracting that out</li> <li>Not a lot of text in ProgDoc about this, but it's become very important here</li> </ul> <h2 id="W4-ActionPlans-ServicesAtlas">Services Atlas</h2> <ul> <li>Major issue w/ service atlas - notion of relativity</li> <li>Everything centers around service atlas</li> <li>Real point is that it's linked with everything else</li> <li>Match what we're trying to think of for 1/2 year timeframe - how do we get to some stage of having something, some kind of prdouct after a year, while still trying to figure things out</li> <li>This is a tension right off the bat</li> <li>Tool guide - were trying to figure out tool guide vs. service atlas</li> <li>Some of that was tool guide was stuff that's fro wider web? Atlas is more for PB?</li> <li>Operating prototype</li> <li>Verdict: atlas is supposed to be richly nuanced powerful knowledge-base around tools, services, etc</li> <li>Atlas is about metadata - need metadata development process</li> <li>Trying to at the same time make connections back to narratives/recipes, also out into consortium * for explore/plan/build activities </li> <li>Q: This comes up in service atlas, but also in recipes: idea that there needs to be a tight focus on what needs to be built in years 1/2</li> <li>Proof of overall vision/design for going forward</li> <li>Nothing explicit in plan in terms of activity</li> <li>Highlights need for "This is good technology" - tool, interoperability standard, dependencies, etc.</li> <li>How is that going to evolve, does there need to be more work about why a tool is good, why standards should be adopted, why Bamboo? </li> <li>DAG: So, some kind of process in first two years which is a review/evaluation/ranking/education re: tools and services, and interoperability standards. </li> <li>What exactly is a service atlas? Not sure.</li> <li>Could use a more succinct description to be provided @ some point</li> <li>Succinct description - data source (with metadata)</li> <li>Succinct, but is that clear? </li> <li>DAG: Why don't we try to solve this one as part of next version of strawman proposal and on the program document?</li> <li>There are some ways to clarify that too, including questions people have been asking re: Service * Atlas' relationship w/ other pieces</li> <li>Differentiating factor: including tools/narratives/tool-content guide, but also goes back to web services POV</li> <li>Layer of richness and abstraction of metadata activities</li> <li>Part of what we hae to do is find ways to clarify description, more examples for what that looks like</li> <li>Area in second vote that got the highest number of dots was the Service Atlas</li> <li>Something powerful there, between Forum and Cloud <h2 id="W4-ActionPlans-BambooExchange">Bamboo Exchange</h2> </li> <li>No one was there?</li> <li>Rick Peterson - "I put a yellow dot up"</li> <li>At Washington & Lee, with colleague, we're very excited, and have a lot of energy for this area</li> <li>We'll work with you to figure this out <h2 id="W4-ActionPlans-SharedServices">Shared Services</h2> </li> <li>Very small group - me and Bernie</li> <li>Technical discussion</li> <li>Three excruciatingly long subsections - focused on last one</li> <li>Bamboo Appliance, talked about kinds of things; Bernie taught me a great deal about how technologists who work in data centers and provide virtualized machines think about things</li> <li>Put some detail that might be of interest to only technologists in the section on the wiki</li> <li>Bernie's assessment - could get fairly far in deploying an Appliance in a couple different locations</li> <li>Distributed set of Appliances forming a Cloud?</li> <li>Could scale to more sites than two; distribution in the Cloud </li> <li>DAG: How many people have a question about what the Appliance is? (lots of hands)</li> <li>A computer (server) that lives in the data center; a server that gives you a web page/application - Google is a great server farm</li> <li>Servers can focus on storing content, servers that connect to big storage machines</li> <li>An appliance is thinking of an analogy of a kitchen appliance</li> <li>If you want to keep your food from spoiling, you want to keep i cold</li> <li>Could nail together a wooden box with ice, but instead you go out and buy a refrigerator appliance - someone's figured out better engineering than you can do yourself</li> <li>An appliance in these terms - machine configured to provide services that PB is interested in providing </li> <li>Can be set up @ any institution's data center, or a vendor paid to host it</li> <li>PB can provide services w/o doing a lot of the technology decision making/implementation </li> <li>Questions?</li> <li>Q: This sounds great, but I'm curious whether if we're trying to come up w/ proof of concept in a year or two - how would this look?</li> <li>In the long term, this is critical, but I'd like some sense of how this ranks for initial priorities?</li> <li>CJK: Even hosting our web page, we need some of this stuff</li> <li>Some of this stuff is proof of concept (in the project sense)</li> <li>But we need some components up and running and "in production"</li> <li>Appliance piece needs to go forward so we'll have something to build on, minimize complexity across community</li> <li>We have choices for what we want to say "first generation production stuff" - move forward with that, so we can do what we want in year 2/3/six months later.</li> <li>Challenge of thinking along the way - planing work we're doing now is pointing in a particular direction</li> <li>Probably wouldn't think about it as proof of concept - this is Version 1, but Version 1 might be really bad and we might totally redo it for Version 2</li> <li>Need components in place so ideas can advance elsewhere</li> <li>Appliance is one of these ideas right now; Bernie and Steve have thought about scalability, more than two sites</li> <li>Could probably do 2/3 and make it work, to call it "production" - we need to do that</li> <li>Or we'll be perpetually piloting and testing, over and over - deliverables won't be there that people want to depend on / use</li> <li>Some things are easy to instantiate and run, behind the scenes, to get us out the gate w/o putting pressure on one institution to do it all</li> <li>We have to do a little behind the scenes to get us going </li> <li>DAG: Appliance is infrastructure that helps provide connections</li> <li>Google Search - ties you into Google Search that's already there</li> <li>Ties you back to a larger set of services; some kind of model, need to build initial piece of infrastructure to help universities be part of services model from the beginnin</li> <li>There are some nice opportunities to get investments from IBM, Sun, others that have inerest in higher education</li> <li>Leveraging other resources w/o making any particular proprietary commitment </li> <li>Q: I like analogy of appliance like with stove, refrigerator</li> <li>But what is this going to DO?</li> <li>DAG: part is in program document, didn't list services</li> <li>Imagine having stuff like housing the services that may be ore concrete scholarly services</li> <li>CJK: We've talked about recipes here - database with information</li> <li>A lot of us have seen in projects, if you're using someone else's database for your research - that can go down for maintenance</li> <li>You don't know it's failed on Saturday, but you need it by Monday</li> <li>Appliance idea - greater than two, the database could be shared across all three instances</li> <li>One can go down, and you wouldn't know it - it's always there</li> <li>Scaling up from there; at a certain level, sometimes you realize that PB wiki is non-responsive</li> <li>Collaboration environment can be something that can be housed on the Appliance</li> <li>Lots of bits and pieces depending on how far you want to go</li> <li>Think about how you use Google/Facebook - don't think about going to a particular server; you go to whatever machine is available, and you have access to everything</li> <li>These are the kinds of things we want to look at - not just what PB does internally, but there's components like atlas/narratives/services that help interface w/ resources at JStor, etc. there's a dependable place you can go for those things </li> <li>DAG: If you have TEI encoded set of scenarios, you want to take data and derive social relationships out of it</li> <li>If there's other people who want to do that, it'd be great for you to run something as a service - send data in, get visualization out</li> <li>We want to run something like that as a service, but that needs to have reliability we don't have right now</li> <li>Appliance allows us to build up that infrastructure - exposing services in a more robust way</li> <li>Glossing over details, but giving you a sense of the model we'd like to move towards; iportant scholarly services that span disciplines are available to people</li> <li>Q: That's a core that we want to accomplish - a useful service lives on someone's desktop</li> <li>This is what Bamboo, in my conversation w/ Mellon, is what we're expecting to do</li> <li>Take existing services w/ real value and re-engineer them</li> <li>Demonstrate some value, how to do this core mission </li> <li>DAG: If you look at shared services lifestyle, application/tool partnership - that's the model</li> <li>Take services in siloed application, and figure out how to run them in a cloud</li> <li>Some could be made available to more scholars across disciplines; there's services to be shared between different disciplines</li> <li>That's some of the goal for the long-term, but how to start in short-term </li> <li>Duraspace - Fedora and DSpace - building institutional repositories</li> <li>Model where by banding together, they can use cloud-based storage services</li> <li>Problem for how to support from digital library side</li> <li>People are struggling forward, trying to figure out how to band together</li> </ul> <h2 id="W4-ActionPlans-ToolandApplicationAlignmentPartnerships">Tool and Application Alignment Partnerships</h2> <ul> <li>Concrete things that we want to build</li> <li>Personal note: was chairperson of scholarly narrative group between Workshop 2 and now; had to make tough decision yesterday</li> <li>Schol narratives working group - how to decide what we're collecting? Scope?</li> <li>This is effective in firs year or two, defining scope, showing progress; we have integrated some tools together in disparate areas/universities in Appliance</li> <li>Poignant that services framework and atlas pointed out there need to be more than 2 sites</li> <li>We need to prove that we can take services/tools/content from multiple projects and use the same framework to support them, to show we have something that can be reused, that can help us</li> <li>Moved to this group because I believed we need to be strategic about choosing those tools, "this is what we'll put together in year 1"</li> <li>That will give us the scope for our work</li> <li>What we focused on: can we define what these projects will look like? What do we need to find re: tools?</li> <li>Rundown of tools - posted on their wiki page</li> <li>Things that scholars need, 4-5 things PB can provide to individual projects</li> <li>Appeal to wide part of community</li> <li>Low-hanging fruit; tools that already exist</li> <li>Have people in those projects, resources in those projects that are able to cooperae in this effort</li> <li>Mellon projects are readily available, encouraged to cooperate</li> <li>Should avoid interoperability projects - don't want to re-invent the wheel</li> <li>We don't want to repeat work once we're collaborating with groups</li> <li>Must have faculty/scholars who understand why they want to use the tools, help us understand requirements, do testing, validate it's working </li> <li>In 1 year? Don't know what resources are available</li> <li>Chart path forward that demonstrates framework we're using</li> <li>Needs to work w/ more than 2 sites/projects</li> <li>Support real research for people</li> <li>Has to produce scholarship</li> <li>Need to have people using it w/in 1 year or 2</li> <li>Needs to be generalizable</li> <li>Need something functional</li> <li>Selection problem: need to select tools, worried about how to make that selection fairly</li> <li>How to select tools we'll bring together, maintain focus of this community</li> <li>Probable that we can't address everyone needs in first pass</li> <li>How to keep people engaged, not lose that segment of the community</li> <li>Dependencies - relationships: need relationships w/ projects and faculty we're trying to help</li> <li>Need to be working w/ services framework/processes to make sure we can clearly abstract reusable things</li> <li>Pieces that relate to that: need people available in project who can identify things that can be generalized</li> <li>Need lightweight governance - going off re: encouraging collaboration, we felt that lightweight governance model that supported interoperability between tools but was not a huge bureaucracy that required a lot of resources to maintain</li> <li>Model: Internet Standards and Protocol - loose affiliation of industry people that put in request for content re: how things are interoperating</li> <li>This is how we should encourage tools/services to play together </li> <li>Q: Education group - YES! YES!</li> <li>We also talked abut this; need involvement as beta testers, working w/ scholarly narratives, pulling in faculty, talking specifically abut assignments, getting students involved, educating faculty <h2 id="W4-ActionPlans-Contentinteroperabilitypartnerships">Content interoperability & partnerships</h2> </li> <li>Had a good debate, but this is aptly named</li> <li>Focus here was on PB's role in interoperability piece and dependency on partners</li> <li>Even discovery layer, search services</li> <li>Urge to draw distinction where PB would NOT provide its efforts re: content discovery/access</li> <li>Mini-mission statement: focus on model that will reduce friction, lower barriers to content access, transport access to content/data in ways that scholars need them</li> <li>Use synthesis, etc</li> <li>Expected qualities re: standards, issues, formats</li> <li>Useful discussion re: rights and access control - important as we move forward</li> <li>This is a point of friction re: multi-institutional access </li> <li>Did not talk re: dependency w/ service atlas grup</li> <li>Forming partnerships w/ content providers, search/support services - this is key piece</li> <li>Interoperability requirements for this part of work</li> <li>Focused a little on concrete pieces that could be done w/in first couple years - still feels like there's a lot of analysis that needs to be done (could be pre-existing)</li> <li>What content partners would be ideal to start with a proof of concept</li> <li>Notion of year 1 to start looking at solutions across PB content providers</li> <li>Synthesis that would lead towards reasonable set of proof of concepts, perhaps multiple, that would tend to be well-represented, higher-impact use cases identified through scholarly narratives</li> <li>Pilot institutions involved in education</li> <li>Setting requirement for institutions - must join for eligibility for API services</li> </ul>