dm-l

dm-l@uleth.ca

2 participants
2789 discussions

VOTE NOW: DIGITAL MEDIEVALIST BOARD ELECTIONS for 2013
by Takako Kato 01 Jul '13

01 Jul '13

Voting will be OPEN until TUE 9th JULY, GMT midnight. To vote in the election you must be one of the subscribers to the Digital Medievalist mailing list, <dm-l(a)uleth.ca> (Follow < http://digitalmedievalist.org/mailing/> to join). The survey used to vote asks for your email address for this purpose solely, it is only seen by the returning officers and no other use is made of it. Board positions are for two year terms and incumbents may be re-elected. Members of the board are responsible for the overall direction of the organisation and leading the Digital Medievalist's many projects and programmes. This is a working board and candidates should be willing and able to commit time to helping Digital Medievalist undertake some of its activities (such as hands on copy-editing of its journal). Information about Digital Medievalist is available at its website. See especially: * <http://digitalmedievalist.org/about/> * <http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/bylaws/> ================== To VOTE fill out the survey here: <http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/336XR2R> ================== CANDIDATE STATEMENTS The following biographical candidate statements (alphabetical order by surname) are intended to help you decide for whom you may wish to vote. There are 4 positions available and so you may cast a total of up to 4 votes. After voting please remember to click DONE! ***************************** BENJAMIN ALBRITTON Benjamin Albritton works as the digital medieval program manager at Stanford University Libraries. In that role, he oversees the Parker on the Web project (<http://parker.stanford.edu>), the preservation of Walters Art Museum digital manuscript content in the Stanford Digital Repository (< goo.gl/GvCba>), and ongoing content collaborations with the Bibliothèque nationale de France, the University of Pennsylvania, and others. In addition to content-based projects, he coordinates the Mellon-funded Digital Manuscript Technology program: an international manuscript interoperability project dedicated to cross-repository collaboration. This effort, shared by many collaborators, has spawned SharedCanvas (< http://www.shared-canvas.org/>) and the International Image Interoperability Framework (<http://lib.stanford.edu/iiif>). The primary aim of the project is increased access to distributed resources and tools for medieval scholars in order to enable comparative work across manuscript collections. Benjamin is committed to bringing content owners, software developers, and scholars together to further research in medieval topics. In addition to his digital library work, he remains active as a musicologist. Current projects include: "Machaut in the Book" (co-PI), an interdisciplinary and collaborative study of the role of Guillaume de Machaut as author in the surviving witnesses to his works, with particular focus on poetic miscellanies; and "A Comparative Kalendar", a nascent tool for navigation across digitized manuscripts that contain liturgical calendars. ***************************** SUZANNE PAUL Suzanne Paul is the Medieval Manuscripts Specialist at Cambridge University Library (<http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/>). She is currently developing a new online catalogue of the library's medieval manuscripts using TEI and participating in the ongoing digitisation of the collection in the Cambridge Digital Library (<http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/>). From 2007 to May 2013 she was sub-librarian at the Parker Library (< http://www.corpus.cam.ac.uk/about-us/parker-library/>), Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, with particular responsibility for creating and updating metadata in XML and database formats for Parker on the Web (< http://parkerweb.stanford.edu/>). She has extensive experience of collaborating with researchers and other librarians on digital projects. ***************************** PHILIP SHAW I am a medievalist with around ten years' experience in digital humanities. My first academic post was on the Partonopeus de Blois Electronic Edition Project (<http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/partonopeus/>), where I worried about the textual difficulties of an Old French romance alongside straightening out the project's automated text processing needs. Since then I've developed a tool for gathering linguistic data from Twitter, used by Ruth Page in her _Stories and Social Media: Identities and Interaction_ (Routledge, 2012), have created tools for generating the indices of the Production and Use of English Manuscripts 1060-1220 project (< http://www.le.ac.uk/ee/em1060to1220/>), and was part of the team responsible for HALOGEN (<http://halogen.le.ac.uk>). I am currently working on software tools for comparison across Middle English texts with divergent orthographic forms and on the application of cluster analysis to historical onomastic data. I would welcome the opportunity to contribute to the running of Digital Medievalist as an Executive Board member. ***************************** PETER STOKES I am currently Senior Lecturer in the Department of Digital Humanities at King's College London. I have a degree in Classics and English Literature and another in Computer Engineering, as well as a PhD in Anglo-Saxon palaeography. I have worked as Research Associate, Analyst and/or Developer on the LangScape (<http://langscape.org.uk/>), Anglo-Saxon Cluster (< http://ascluster.org/>), and Electronic Sawyer (<http://esawyer.org.uk/>) projects at King's. I have also held a Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship on computer-based methods in palaeography, and was awarded a major research grant for DigiPal (<http://digipal.eu/>), which I lead as Principal Investigator. I lecture in Digital Humanities and in palaeography, I advise on external digital projects, and I am Principal Coordinator of Medieval Manuscript Studies in the Digital Age (MMSDA; < http://www.ies.sas.ac.uk/study-training/research-training-courses/medieval-…>), a five-day training programme for PhD students. A full CV is available at <http://peterstokes.org/cv/>. I have served on the Executive Board of Digital Medievalist and been Associate Editor of the Journal since 2009, and I have been Director of DM since 2012. In addition to these roles I have contributed to DM in many other ways, including updates, improvements and emergency fixes to the website; running conference sessions; helping introduce term limits for the Board; and co-acting as Returning Officer for the 2010 elections. DM's membership has grown significantly during this time, increasing by more than 15% in the last year, so if re-elected my key goal will be to establish the expertise and infrastructural stability necessary to allow this growth to continue in the longer term. ***************************** DOMINIQUE STUTZMAN Stutzman, Dominique (2011-2013). After degrees in Classics, History and German studies at the Sorbonne, Dominique Stutzmann studied at the École nationale des Chartes (<http://www.enc.sorbonne.fr/>; archiviste paléographe, 2002), received a MLIS and worked at the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin (MSS Dept.) and the Bibliothèque nationale de France (< http://www.bnf.fr/fr/acc/x.accueil.html>; Digital Information Dept.). He completed a PhD on scribal practices of Cistercian communities in medieval Burgundy, for which he developed the statistical analysis of scribal profiles based on TEI encoding. Since 2007, he is lecturer of medieval paleography at the École Pratique des Hautes Études (< http://www.ephe.sorbonne.fr/>) and, since 2010, research fellow at the Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes (<http://www.irht.cnrs.fr/>; CNRS). In the Graphem project (<http://liris.cnrs.fr/graphem/>; 2008-2011), he co-organized an international colloquium on computer-aided script analysis, categorization and classification (Paris, 14-15 April 2011). He is now principal investigator of the ORIFLAMMS project (< http://oriflamms.hypotheses.org/>; 2013-2016), joining Computer Vision, Linguistics and Palaeography (allographic transcriptions, ontology of forms) in study of the variety of medieval scripts and its factors (place, time, language, formality, function). ***************************** SEAN SWANICK My name is Sean Swanick and I am the Islamic Studies Liaison Librarian at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec. Since starting in 2009, I have, amongst my other duties of collection development, reference work and teaching, and related activities curated a number of exhibitions highlighting McGill's rich manuscript collection. Noteworthy for the members of Digital Medievalist are the 2012 exhibition "Book Culture in the Medieval Mediterranean World" (co-curated with Dr. C. Hilsdale of the Art History department and Ms. J. Garland of Rare Books and Special Collections, McGill), the Shahnmeh exhibition of the famous Persian epic poem which was also an online exhibition (< http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/shahnameh/index.php>) and the Abū Hāmid al-Ghazālī (1058-1111) exhibition and accompanying booklet. Through these efforts, I strive to combine research exercises with professors and students in order to highlight the rich collections of McGill University. In addition, I have co-curated an Islamic Calligraphy exhibition in 2010 which was later digitized (< http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/islamic_calligraphy/index.php>). If elected, I will serve the community in engaging in scholarly activities and leading and ensuring that the overall direction of the organisation and the Digital Medievalist's many projects and programmes remain a priority and continue to flourish. *****************************

1 0

TEI Conference 2013: online registration opened
by Digital Medievalist » News: robertordt 01 Jul '13

01 Jul '13

1 0

Global Digital Humanities Essay Competition: Deadline Extended to July 6, 1200 GMT.
by Daniel O'Donnell 29 Jun '13

29 Jun '13

The Global Outlook::Digital Humanities Essay Contest Deadline has been extended until Noon GMT July 6, 2013. A description of the competition can be found below and at the GO::DH website: http://www.globaloutlookdh.org/global-outlookdigital-humanities-global-digi… The deadline is being extended in recognition of the diverse nature of the target audience and to ensure that nobody is prevented from contributing due to infrastructure problems or late notice of the competition. Participants who have already made a submission but feel that they could profit from the extension are welcome to resubmit their work by the extended deadline, otherwise the original submission will be entered in the competition. In the case of multiple submissions from the same author, the committee will use the latest submission unless otherwise instructed. The adjudication would like to thank the many participants who have already made submissions to the competition. We are very much looking forward to reading your work! -dan P.S. We apparently forgot to list Word as an acceptable format for submission. This was an oversight on our part. The committee can consider files in Word format. ============================== Contest description Global Outlook :: Digital Humanities, The University of Lethbridge, Digital Studies/Le champ numérique, and The Alliance of Digital Humanities Organisations is pleased to announce the first Global Digital Humanities Essay Competition. http://www.globaloutlookdh.org/global-outlookdigital-humanities-global-digi… This is an open competition for research papers on the national, regional, or international practice of the Digital Humanities--a broad topic that has been designed to give authors the greatest possible scope. Authors may write on individual projects or problems or broader philosophical, geographical, sociological, political, or other aspects of the practice of Digital Humanities in a global context. Papers discussing the practice of DH by or with marginalised communities or in areas that are currently less well represented by ADHO are particularly welcome. The competition is open to any interested party including students, graduate students, junior faculty, and researchers unaffiliated with a university or research institution. We would like to especially encourage submissions from students, junior and unaffiliated researchers, and authors belonging to marginalised communities or communities currently less well represented by ADHO. The competition is offering a minimum of 4 prizes of $500 (CAD) each. Initial selection (for a prize of $200) is by abstract/proposal. A further $300 will be awarded to the authors of the winning abstracts upon satisfactory completion of a full-length paper based on their original proposal. All submissions will be eligible for review and publication in the ADHO journal, Digital Studies/Le champ numérique (http://digitalstudies.org/). For further information about the competition, please see the competition web page: http://www.globaloutlookdh.org/global-outlookdigital-humanities-global-digi…. The competition organisers can also be contacted by email at prizes(a)globaloutlookdh.org The initial deadline (abstracts/proposals) is June 30, 2013. -Daniel Paul O'Donnell -- Daniel Paul O'Donnell Professor of English University of Lethbridge Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4 Canada +1 403 393-2539

1 0

CfP: Blackburn's Worthy Citizen: The Philanthropic Legacy of R. E. Hart
by Digital Medievalist » News: digitalmedievalistnews 26 Jun '13

26 Jun '13

1 0

Fwd: Call for ADHO Special Interest Groups
by Daniel O'Donnell 24 Jun '13

24 Jun '13

From: Neil Fraistat <nfraistat(a)gmail.com <mailto:nfraistat@gmail.com>> Dear all, The Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations (ADHO) invites its members to propose a Special Interest Group (SIG). By forming a SIG, those with similar professional specialties, interests, and aptitudes can exchange ideas, stay current, and mobilize to pursue common goals across the boundaries of ADHOs individual Constituent Organizations. For example, ADHOs first SIG, Global Outlook::Digital Humanities <http://www.globaloutlookdh.org/>(GO::DH), aims to reduce barriers to communication and collaboration among researchers and students of the Digital Arts, Humanities, and Cultural Heritage sectors in High, Mid, and Low Income Economies by promoting discovery, community-building, research, and advocacy. To propose a SIG <http://adho.org/administration/steering/draft-protocol-adho-special-interes…>, an elected or appointed contact person should submit a description of the group to ADHOs Chair, currently Neil Fraistat <mailto:nfraistat@gmail.com>. Please see theSIG protocol <http://adho.org/administration/steering/protocol-adho-special-interest-grou…>for directions about producing the SIG proposal, a model proposal, and further information. If you will be attending DH 2013, we invite you to a SIG Slam, where those interested in starting a SIG can do one-minute pitches about them and meet with others who share their interests. The SIG Slam will take place during the joint ADHO/centerNet General Members meeting at lunchtime on Friday, July 19th. Best, Neil -- Neil Fraistat Professor of English & Director Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities (MITH) 0301 Hornbake Library North University of Maryland 301-405-5896 or 301-314-7111 (fax) http://www.mith.umd.edu/ https://twitter.com/fraistat

1 0

RE: [dm-l] Re: How to make your data live forever (and maybe your project?) (long and perhaps TAN)
by O'Donnell, Dan 22 Jun '13

22 Jun '13

Hi Marjorie, I was talking about data and resources from the perspective of the maintenance problems they produce rather than intrinsic qualities. But I would still maintain that there is a fundamental epistemological difference between outputs and processes, or as I called them, data and projects/resources (in broad terms, I'd say the difference between a project and a resource is that the former has an end date and the later doesn't; but both are processes). To me, the important thing about data is that they exist and they are used for something (that's even built into the etymology of the term). We can distinguish between primary and secondary data, but data are still the stuff you build your interpretation and analysis from. In English in the humanities we call them "primary and secondary resources," but that is a historical accident: in print, everything is ultimately data, since it is fixed on the page at some point and your maintenance issues become purely archival (something I would say is a defining feature of data as opposed to processes); while there are resources in my sense in the print world--e.g. journals--the temptation to build resources is less in that world than in the digital, since the commitment is so much more obvious. So to give an example. If I am writing an article about the appearance of the phoenix in the OE Phoenix poem, my data are "the poem," the other secondary work I cite, reference works I use, and so on. I'm guessing your analysis would say only "the poem" is data in this case. But if it were, then I would ask "what do you mean by 'the poem'"? If I use a transcription or an edition, I'm really accessing the text through a secondary source that has analysis built into it. I don't see the difference between basing my reading of a poem on an edition and basing my analysis of a concept on some secondary work on that concept. You might say that this problem goes away if I base my readings on the manuscript itself, but I'd say you aren't actually changing anything: you are still basing your readings on an interpretation, the only difference is that you did the textual interpretation upon which your analysis is based yourself instead of relying on that of an outsider. However, in this thread, we were talking about the project management implications, and I'd say the distinction is even stronger there. Seen from the producer side, data are the outputs of your project or resource which others use for their own work. Seen from the consumer side, they are information from a project or resource that you inherit, acquire, produce, or extend through further accumulation, and, then, presumably, analyse and use for higher research purposes. The key thing is that data ultimately has to be in some sense isolatable in order to be used. Data by its very nature represents a snap-shot in time and/or conceptual space. My argument was that you should take advantage of this property and always strive to ensure that your projects result in something that can be considered in some sense "finished". That's not the same thing as saying "definitive" or "complete": good data leads to additional questions and revisions. But what I mean is you should always strive to have outputs that you can exist as a snap-shot in time or conceptual space and that could remain useful when you are dead or no longer interested in maintaining them. And that means getting them in a shape where they can be archived by professionals and don't require active maintenance. The only reason why this was important is because it is easier in the digital world than in the print to accidentally turn data into resources by adding secondary features that raise almost impossible maintenance burdens. One example of this is deciding that you want to control who extends your data or how they do it: for example, by deciding you are going to referee future additions or insist that others follow your protocols; another is wrapping your data up so tightly in a specific processing environment or process that you will lose the data if you fail to maintain the processor. I guess if I had to sum up, I'd say: data is something that can be archived and resources are things that need to be maintained (and so can't be archived). My argument was that that resources carry incredibly heavy costs with them and, in the long run, will always fail (Chaucer never did manage to revoke all his licentious tales, after all). So if you decide your data must be published in a form that requires active subsequent maintenance, realise what you are setting yourself up for and try to design it so that it degrades well when people cease to maintain it. But better, try to distinguish between your resources and data from the very beginning and see all resources as temporary things. -dan ________________________________ From: dm-l-bounces(a)uleth.ca [dm-l-bounces(a)uleth.ca] on behalf of Marjorie Burghart [marjorie.burghart(a)ehess.fr] Sent: June-22-13 3:37 To: dm-l, MailList Subject: Re: [dm-l] Re: How to make your data live forever (and maybe your project?) Hi Dan! Maybe this is a bit side-tracked, but I would argue with the definition of data and resource that you give (data most of all). To me data is raw, primary material, and I am not comfortable considering articles, monographs, dictionaries or edited texts as data, for instance. They are an elaborate, secondary material, they are knowledge produced from data, but not data themselves. As for resource, to me it can be a simple means to access data or more elaborate material, but that's not my main definition of a resource. I would call a resource any coherent set of material, primary or secondary - for instance to me the Online Froissart is a resource on Froissart's chronicle; I would also call a resource, to a certain extent, a project providing users with nifty means of processing a set of data (for instance, the project preparing the digital edition of Flaubert's "Bouvard et Pécuchet" put a lot of efforts into building an interface that would let the user navigate through Flaubert's material for his unfinished novel and make hypothesis about its potential construction - an interface which is fully part of the project). It seems to me that there are more projects aiming at producing resources rather than data, which can explain why they are so difficult to maintain. The coherence would be lost if the material was just poured and melted into a large data repository, or the data would lose most of its interest if separated from the specific tools created by a project to process it. Maybe this distinction can shed some different light on the issue: curation of secondary material is a long-established tradition, through libraries, but curation of data is a different kettle of fish. There are not powerful pre-existing traditions and models as for secondary material, and the digital lore has to invent them quickly. As for resources (according to my definition), their inherent coherence and the often very strong link between data/material and the interface created to use it means that maintaining the interface is a often central issue, and one that is particularly difficult to solve in the long term. Best, Marjorie On 22 June 2013 01:23, Daniel O'Donnell <daniel.odonnell(a)uleth.ca<mailto:daniel.odonnell@uleth.ca>> wrote: Personally, I think you need to make two or maybe three distinctions: between data, resources (maybe), and projects. * Projects create and/or analyse data. They have a definite beginning and end and they are run by somebody. This means the main preservation problem is how you keep them going until they "finish." Once they finish, their outputs are either data or resources or both. An example of a project might be the production of edition of a text, a monograph, journal article, or a specific edition of a dictionary or an encyclopedia. * Data are created by projects. They are in essence static (though they can be corrected or revised). Ideally they can be reused by other projects, either with or without negotiation (though this is in practice often very difficult). The preservation problem with data is hosting and discoverability. Examples of data might be photos, 3D scans, transcriptions, edited texts, editions of dictionaries or encyclopedias, monographs and journal articles, and so on. * Resources are things that provide access to data: e.g. digital libraries, edition interfaces, dictionary or edition interfaces, and so on. These are things that may need to be actively maintained and updated if they are to remain useful. Examples of resources include encyclopedia or dictionary sites, journals, perhaps monograph series, scholarly societies, and so on. If this makes sense, then I think the organisational issues are different in each case. * With projects, the transfer is always going to be negotiated: you are talking about a small group of people who share a common goal and understanding of the project (more or less) and when a transfer happens, you are going to see a handoff: one leader or group hands off control to another under specific conditions. Projects are usually organised around a single leader, or a couple of co-leaders, or a small board. The problem for projects is really the same, whether the project is paper-based or digital. * For data, you are looking for maintenance that is as hands off as possible and transfer that can happen without negotiation. The important question here is whether the data is discoverable, comprehensible, and accessible. Hence Peter's point about licencing, for example, and about institutional repositories or the Oxford Text Archive. For data, you don't really need a board or a chair or anything else (in fact if you need it, it is probably not being well stored). You need some institution that is already established and is willing to accept your data under conditions you both find acceptable as part of its mission. Universities and libraries are good methods for this. Again, the problem is not really too dissimilar between paper and digital: you want as much as possible to give your data in static form to an institution that is set up to preserve it. * Resources are the hardest things to preserve, because there is no obvious end date, but they may require active intervention. Because of this, I think you should do everything you can to avoid creating them. If you are designing an edition, you should design it so that it degrades well over time and can be treated like data (whether as a whole or in its component parts). This means making use of components that are built into the architecture of the web as much as possible and separating content from processing. Good examples include Stuart Lee's edition of Ælfric's sermons, Murray McGillvray's Book of the Duchess, I'd argue my edition of Caedmon's Hymn, any post P2 version of the TEI. A famously poor example (though it isn't their fault) is the BBC's Domesday Project from the late 1980s. The exceptions to this rule are by-and-large not research projects: scholarly societies, for example, are resources rather than projects or data, but if they stop, it is because nobody is interested in them anymore. MESA is a resource that referees data. But if it dies, the data still survives. If you do build a resource (for example, a journal or a scholarly society), you should do everything you can to ensure that it degrades to data when people lose interest in it: so your journals should be hosted by or mirrored at universities and archives, for example, and should not depend too much on dynamic libraries for expression. So in the end the answer to your question might be this: do everything you can to avoid creating a resource. Make sure that your data production is tied to a project rather than a resource and has a definite end-point in sight. If you want to create data that others will revise and add to after you are finished with it, don't try to be the arbiter of the quality of their interventions. Understand what they are doing as independent projects that are responsible for seeking their own quality assurance. Create URLs or other identifiers that archives can administer without your help. Publish guidelines and suggestions for how subsequent generations might add to your data, but give up on enforcing them. In other words, try to imitate the Chaucer of the epilogue to Troilus and Criseyde ("go litel bok, go little myn tragedie") rather than the Chaucer of the epilogue to the Canterbury Tales ("...the whiche I revoke in my retracciouns"). On 13-06-21 03:51 PM, Michelson, David Allen wrote: Dear Peter and others, Thank you for these helpful responses. I agree completely with your advice that one should seek out repositories and generally try to get the data freely in the hands of as many as possible. Daniel's point about DOIs is also very useful. Having said that, these are advice about how to avoid extinction in the worst case scenario, e.g. when no one is actively curating, revising, or hosting the data and it is in danger of disappearing because in the short run there is no one to care. I am curious about how to prepare for the best case scenario, e.g. a single scholar or small group of scholars create data files which are received by the scholarly community as of sufficient value to be crowd curated indefinitely. While the fact that the data will be CC-by means that the crowd will be free to do what it wants, from a pragmatic perspective it seems like it would still be useful to have an editorial board of sorts Joel mentioned in his post for the following reasons: 1. To offer scholarly peer review to the revisions to the data, in effect creating canonical revisions. 2. To curate guidelines and coordinate collaboration for this revision. 3. To own and administer the URL associated with the project (which is used for minting URIs, for redirecting to content repositories, and to serve as the single URL for finding the data). 4. To give some momentum to the project should interest wane for a period after the initial researchers have stopped intense work on the data. I am very much aware and even happy with the fact that in a certain sense the work of this editorial board is non-binding since the data is open and people will do what they want with the data. At the same time, I believe that scholarly peer review is valuable. So my question is, how do I structure this standing committee? Should it be based at a university, a publisher, through a scholarly society, as a formal non-profit corporation, as an informal agreement, etc? In the past such multi-generation collaboration might have occurred through a press (various dictionaries for example) or through a scholarly society (long running translation or publication series) but I am wondering about how this model occurs in the digital age. I would love to see examples from formal arrangements others have made if any. Thank you! David A. Michelson Assistant Professor Vanderbilt University www.syriaca.org<http://www.syriaca.org> From: Peter Robinson <P.M.Robinson(a)bham.ac.uk<mailto:P.M.Robinson@bham.ac.uk>> Date: Friday, June 21, 2013 12:05 PM To: David Michelson <david.a.michelson(a)vanderbilt.edu<mailto:david.a.michelson@vanderbilt.edu>> Cc: "<dm-l(a)uleth.ca<mailto:dm-l@uleth.ca>>" <dm-l(a)uleth.ca<mailto:dm-l@uleth.ca>> Subject: How to make your data live forever (and maybe your project?) HI David I think you are hitting upon a very sore point in the DH/editorial communities. We have had editorial projects launched all over the place, with great enthusiasm and often, substantial funding. Many now face exactly the problem you outline: what happens after the PI/institution move on? So, here are three things you can do which will help immensely: 1. Explicitly declare all your materials as Creative Commons Share-alike attribution: that is, **without** the 'non-commercial' use restrictions so often (and wrongly) imposed by many projects. 2. Place the data, so licensed, on any open server. The Oxford Text Archive is, after so many years, still the best place I know to put your data. That alone should be enough to make your data live forever. And wonderfully, these two options will cost you not a cent, and maybe just a few hours of your time to deal with the OTA deposit pack. Optionally, you could also: 3. Place the data within an institutional repositiory. This gives you the option to use the IR tools to construct an interface, and provide basic search and other tools. In my mind, this option has been scandalously underused by DH projects, for reasons which might be the subject of another post. But this does provide the opportunity for you to present your project in a way that will connect its metadata with the whole world of OASIS etc tools, and offer a sustainable interface. The University of Birmingham Research Archive gives some idea of how this might work: see (for example) the entries for the Mingana collection (eg http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/84/) and Codex Sinaiticus ( http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1690/). There is another answer: 1. Keep the 'non-commercial' licence restriction on your data. You can thereby claim that you are allowing all your fellow academics to use it freely, while (if you choose) not actually making it freely available outside your interface. 2. Create an elaborate and very attractive interface to your data 3. Persuade your university, or someone, to set up a DH centre, with a minimum staff of a director and programmer, space and dedicated equipment (say, 100K a year if you can swing this with part-time staff etc). This DH centre will then have the task of maintaining your data (which of course, only the centre has), interface and project. This centre can then deal with all the issues you raise in your post. 4. Persuade your university, or someone, to support data, interface and project, in perpetuity Well, good luck with that! Peter On 20 Jun 2013, at 23:28, Michelson, David Allen wrote: Dear Colleagues, I'd like to add a follow up question to this very informative discussion. I am also in the process of building a DH sub-community for a specific disciplinary niche. I would like to ask your advice on governance and standards. I am looking for models and best practices to ensure long term sustainability of my collaborative DH project once it hopefully outgrows its incubation stage. Could you please point me to long running DH projects whose protocols for governance, editorial oversight, institutional ownership/hosting I might emulate? I am thinking of medium sized DH projects as models, so bigger than one scholar publishing a digital project, but much smaller than the TEI consortium or Digital Medievalist. Given the concerns over sustainability inherent in DH, I am also interested in advice on how to transition a project from the stage where a grant-funded PI is the leader in getting content online to where a volunteer editorial board (and institutional hosts) maintain a project longer term. Also, how do DH projects handle the preservation of content for such a project? The data will be licensed open source, but who should hold the copyright and renew the domain name after the project is launched? A university library? An s-corporation independent of any institution (like some non-profit scholarly journals or professional societies)? the public domain, the original scholarly contributors? Please suggest links to examples to follow from existing projects if you are aware of them. Thank you! Dave David A. Michelson Assistant Professor Vanderbilt University www.syriaca.org Digital Medievalist -- http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/ Journal: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/ Journal Editors: editors _AT_ digitalmedievalist.org<http://digitalmedievalist.org> News: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/news/ Wiki: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/wiki/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/digitalmedieval Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=49320313760 Discussion list: dm-l(a)uleth.ca<mailto:dm-l@uleth.ca> Change list options: http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/dm-l Peter Robinson Honorary Research Fellow, ITSEE, University of Birmingham, UK Bateman Professor of English 9 Campus Drive, University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon SK S7N 5A5, Canada -- --- Daniel Paul O'Donnell Professor of English University of Lethbridge Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4 Canada +1 403 393-2539<tel:%2B1%20403%20393-2539> Digital Medievalist -- http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/ Journal: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/ Journal Editors: editors _AT_ digitalmedievalist.org<http://digitalmedievalist.org> News: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/news/ Wiki: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/wiki/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/digitalmedieval Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=49320313760 Discussion list: dm-l(a)uleth.ca<mailto:dm-l@uleth.ca> Change list options: http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/dm-l

1 0

Re: [dm-l] Mailing List, Wiki, Blog or what?
by Norman Hinton 22 Jun '13

22 Jun '13

I have a Twitter account, but I never write anything. I just read what the St Louis Post-Dispatch sports writers write there. I'm in agreement with Marjorie: I never read any blogs and I don't trust wikis. On Jun 20, 2013, at 1:17 PM, Daniel O'Donnell <daniel.odonnell(a)uleth.ca> wrote: Marjorie! You are indeed old fashioned. No twitter? #getwiththeprogramme ;-) On 13-06-20 12:15 PM, Marjorie Burghart wrote: Dear Andreas, Regarding an academic community, I would personally prefer a) a mailing list to seriously discuss some topics, aided by b) a facebook group for quick news and comments I suppose I am very old fashioned, but mailing lists are my definitive favourites. Sorry, but I was born in the 20th c. ;) - Blogs: I don't give a fig about blogs as a means of regular information. I do not follow any. Of course I read blog posts sometimes, when they are pointed out to me or when hey come up in a web search, but I do not *follow* any blog. - Wiki sites: I just don't trust them. - Social networks: you do have a point about the segmentation; I use Facebook a lot for both professional and personal contacts, and I have an academia.edu account, but I don't use it very actively and do not wish to have to follow news and posts on several networks. - Bulletin boards: they work well for some communities, but I don't feel that academic communities have the right balance of news and debates to work well on BB. - Twitter: not good for academic communities IMHO. Interesting question, Andreas! :) Marjorie On 11 June 2013 16:03, Andreas Wagner <Andreas.Wagner(a)em.uni-frankfurt.de> wrote: Dear list, please forgive me for rushing in, but I have been having some difficulties in finding people with corresponding experiences and willingness to share their thoughts: When planning to set up a platform on which an international and interdisciplinary community of humanities researchers (most probably not all versed in digital technologies) is invited to exchange their ideas, questions, announcements around a certain thematic focus consisting in a "historically localizable" discourse (in this case the so-called "School of Salamanca" of the 16th and 17th centuries), what type of platform would you prefer, and why? Blog, Mailing list, Bulletin Board, Wiki, ...? How do you perceive access and participation thresholds, popularity/dissemination/visibility, feedback likelihood, etc? To possibly provoke some comments, here are a few intuitions of mine. Please contradict and challenge (or confirm) based on your experiences, or your intuitions: - Blogs are easily accessible and can be viewed/read comfortable, but they tend to have a restriced set of authors. Can anyone imagine applying for authorship rights to a blog administration in order to just pose one question or to advertise one conference? - The same holds for wiki sites. - Social networks like academia.edu, itergateway groups etc. depend on people to focus on one such network which might not be their favorite one, so a too large portion of interested persons is kept out. - Bulletin Boards are a mess. - Twitter messages are too short. - Mailing lists are not subscribed to because they look old-fashioned. Being somewhat nerdy myself, they are my personal favorites, however. On the other hand, when I have asked that same question on my facebook profile, the only response I did get was a suggestion to go for a blog. In other social networks or fora (academia.edu, community.itergateway.org, researchgate.net etc.) I did not get any reply at all (although some are watching/following the question). I would be very grateful for any insights shared... Best regards, Andreas -- Dr. Andreas Wagner Project "The School of Salamanca" Academy of Sciences and Literature, Mainz and Institute of Philosophy Goethe University Frankfurt http://salamanca.adwmainz.de Grüneburgplatz 1 (Pf 116, R. 2.455) 60629 Frankfurt am Main Tel. +49 (0)69/798-32774 Digital Medievalist -- http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/ Journal: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/ Journal Editors: editors _AT_ digitalmedievalist.org News: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/news/ Wiki: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/wiki/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/digitalmedieval Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gidI320313760 Discussion list: dm-l(a)uleth.ca Change list options: http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/dm-l Digital Medievalist -- http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/ Journal: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/ Journal Editors: editors _AT_ digitalmedievalist.org News: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/news/ Wiki: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/wiki/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/digitalmedieval Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=49320313760 Discussion list: dm-l(a)uleth.ca Change list options: http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/dm-l -- --- Daniel Paul O'Donnell Professor of English University of Lethbridge Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4 Canada +1 403 393-2539 Digital Medievalist -- http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/ Journal: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/ Journal Editors: editors _AT_ digitalmedievalist.org News: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/news/ Wiki: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/wiki/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/digitalmedieval Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=49320313760 Discussion list: dm-l(a)uleth.ca Change list options: http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/dm-l

8 9

Final Call: Global Digital Humanities Essay Competition (Abstracts Due June 30, 2013)
by Daniel O'Donnell 20 Jun '13

20 Jun '13

**** Please Cross Post **** Hi all, Global Outlook :: Digital Humanities, The University of Lethbridge, and The Alliance of Digital Humanities Organisations is pleased to announce the first Global Digital Humanities Essay Competition. http://www.globaloutlookdh.org/global-outlookdigital-humanities-global-digi… This is an open competition for research papers on the national, regional, or international practice of the Digital Humanities--a broad topic that has been designed to give authors the greatest possible scope. Authors may write on individual projects or problems or broader philosophical, geographical, sociological, political, or other aspects of the practice of Digital Humanities in a global context. Papers discussing the practice of DH by or with marginalised communities or in areas that are currently less well represented by ADHO are particularly welcome. The competition is open to any interested party including students, graduate students, junior faculty, and researchers unaffiliated with a university or research institution. We would like to especially encourage submissions from students, junior and unaffiliated researchers, and authors belonging to marginalised communities or communities currently less well represented by ADHO. The competition is offering a minimum of 4 prizes of $500 (CAD) each. Initial selection (for a prize of $200) is by abstract/proposal. A further $300 will be awarded to the authors of the winning abstracts upon satisfactory completion of a full-length paper based on their original proposal. All submissions will be eligible for review and publication in the ADHO journal, Digital Studies/Le champ numérique (http://digitalstudies.org/). For further information about the competition, please see the competition web page: http://www.globaloutlookdh.org/global-outlookdigital-humanities-global-digi…. The competition organisers can also be contacted by email at prizes(a)globaloutlookdh.org The initial deadline (abstracts/proposals) is June 30, 2013. -Daniel Paul O'Donnell -- Daniel Paul O'Donnell Professor of English University of Lethbridge Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4 Canada +1 403 393-2539

1 0

Mailing List, Wiki, Blog or what?
by Andreas Wagner 20 Jun '13

20 Jun '13

Dear list, please forgive me for rushing in, but I have been having some difficulties in finding people with corresponding experiences and willingness to share their thoughts: When planning to set up a platform on which an international and interdisciplinary community of humanities researchers (most probably not all versed in digital technologies) is invited to exchange their ideas, questions, announcements around a certain thematic focus consisting in a "historically localizable" discourse (in this case the so-called "School of Salamanca" of the 16th and 17th centuries), what type of platform would you prefer, and why? Blog, Mailing list, Bulletin Board, Wiki, ...? How do you perceive access and participation thresholds, popularity/dissemination/visibility, feedback likelihood, etc? To possibly provoke some comments, here are a few intuitions of mine. Please contradict and challenge (or confirm) based on your experiences, or your intuitions: - Blogs are easily accessible and can be viewed/read comfortable, but they tend to have a restriced set of authors. Can anyone imagine applying for authorship rights to a blog administration in order to just pose one question or to advertise one conference? - The same holds for wiki sites. - Social networks like academia.edu, itergateway groups etc. depend on people to focus on one such network which might not be their favorite one, so a too large portion of interested persons is kept out. - Bulletin Boards are a mess. - Twitter messages are too short. - Mailing lists are not subscribed to because they look old-fashioned. Being somewhat nerdy myself, they are my personal favorites, however. On the other hand, when I have asked that same question on my facebook profile, the only response I did get was a suggestion to go for a blog. In other social networks or fora (academia.edu, community.itergateway.org, researchgate.net etc.) I did not get any reply at all (although some are watching/following the question). I would be very grateful for any insights shared... Best regards, Andreas -- Dr. Andreas Wagner Project "The School of Salamanca" Academy of Sciences and Literature, Mainz and Institute of Philosophy Goethe University Frankfurt http://salamanca.adwmainz.de Grüneburgplatz 1 (Pf 116, R. 2.455) 60629 Frankfurt am Main Tel. +49 (0)69/798-32774

8 14

CFP: The Ten Commandments in medieval and early modern culture
by Digital Medievalist » News: digitalmedievalistnews 20 Jun '13

20 Jun '13

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

dm-l