Rome Wasn't Digitized in a Day - Council on Library and Information ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

185 their use of a resource, be it a challeng<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terface or confus<strong>in</strong>g data, would stop them from us<strong>in</strong>g it. These f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs, Warwick et al. (2008b) proposed, should be carefully considered by the creators of digital resources: Thus it is <strong>in</strong>cumbent on producers of digital resources not only to understand the work<strong>in</strong>g practices of the scholars for whom they design, but to produce a resource that is attractive, usable and easy to understand. However, perhaps surpris<strong>in</strong>gly, there appears to be no research that assesses how well digital humanities resources are perform<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> these respects (Warwick et al. 2008b). Thus the need to understand the work<strong>in</strong>g practices of the scholars for whom a resource is be<strong>in</strong>g designed is as important as creat<strong>in</strong>g an attractive and usable resource. While none of the 20 digital humanities projects chosen for analysis was with<strong>in</strong> the discipl<strong>in</strong>e of classics, the results of the LAIRAH <strong>in</strong>terviews provide some useful <strong>in</strong>formation on what makes a digital resource successful <strong>in</strong> the long term. Warwick et al. (2008b) explored the documentation (if any) on each website and conducted a semistructured <strong>in</strong>terview with a project representative that covered the creation and history of a resource, fund<strong>in</strong>g, technical standards, dissem<strong>in</strong>ation, and user test<strong>in</strong>g. Not surpris<strong>in</strong>gly, they found that the <strong>in</strong>stitutional context and “research culture of particular discipl<strong>in</strong>es” greatly affected the production and use of digital resources. One major issue was limited <strong>in</strong>stitutional recognition and prestige for scholars who did digital humanities work; another was uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty among their colleagues as how to value digital scholarship. Another critical issue for the success of digital humanities projects was adequate technical support and staff<strong>in</strong>g. While most pr<strong>in</strong>cipal <strong>in</strong>vestigators (PIs) were relatively happy about the level of support they received (typically from local IT staff or expert colleagues), those that reported contact with a digital humanities center received an even higher level of expert advice. Staff<strong>in</strong>g issues were paramount, as research assistants required both subject knowledge and a good grasp of digital techniques. The grant-funded nature of most projects also made it hard for research assistants to obta<strong>in</strong> adequate technical tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g or for PIs to reta<strong>in</strong> them beyond <strong>in</strong>dividual projects. The most important factor that led to resources that were well used, however, was active dissem<strong>in</strong>ation of project results. All the projects whose PIs were <strong>in</strong>terviewed spent considerable time dissem<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formation about their resources at conferences and workshops. Warwick et al. (2008b) noted that this type of “market<strong>in</strong>g” was a very new area of activity for many academics. A related if not unexpected f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g was that the most-well-used resources tended to be long-lived. This was not necessarily an <strong>in</strong>dicator of successfully meet<strong>in</strong>g user needs. “The persistent use of older digital resources, even when newer, perhaps better ones become available,” Warwick et al. put forward, “may be expla<strong>in</strong>ed by a commercial phenomenon known as ‘switch<strong>in</strong>g costs’”(Warwick et al. 2008b). In other words, users often rema<strong>in</strong> loyal to a particular resource because the effort <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> switch<strong>in</strong>g to a new tool is to great. Another area explored by Warwick et al. (2008b) was the amount of user contact <strong>in</strong> which successful projects were engaged. They found that few projects had “undertaken any type of user test<strong>in</strong>g” or ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed any formal contact with their users. In addition, most projects had little if any understand<strong>in</strong>g either of how their resources were used, or how often. All projects, however, were <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> how their projects were be<strong>in</strong>g used and had made some efforts <strong>in</strong> this area. The most common method, accord<strong>in</strong>g to Warwick et al., was the idea of “designer as user” or where most PIs assumed that their subject knowledge meant that they understood the needs of users and thus could
186 “<strong>in</strong>fer user requirements from their own behaviour.” While Warwick et al. (2008b) granted that some user needs might be discovered <strong>in</strong> this manner, the only real way to discover user needs, they contended, is to ask or study the users themselves. In addition, they reported that some projects “discovered that their audience consisted of a much more diverse group of users than the academic subject experts they had expected” (Warwick et al. 2008b). A related problem was the lack of nonexpert documentation at many projects. In the end, only two projects had conducted any type of direct user test<strong>in</strong>g. As with dissem<strong>in</strong>ation and market<strong>in</strong>g, Warwick et al. (2008b) commented that user test<strong>in</strong>g is not a traditional skill of humanities scholars. The last major issue determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the success of a digital humanities resource was susta<strong>in</strong>ability. At the time their research was conducted (2007–2008), the AHDS still existed and Warwick et al. stated that many projects were either archived there or backed up on an <strong>in</strong>stitutional repository. Despite this archiv<strong>in</strong>g, Warwick et al. (2008b) concluded that this older model of f<strong>in</strong>al deposit was <strong>in</strong>adequate s<strong>in</strong>ce many resources were almost never updated and typically the data were not <strong>in</strong>dependent of the <strong>in</strong>terface. In many cases this resulted <strong>in</strong> digital projects that, despite hav<strong>in</strong>g large amounts of money <strong>in</strong>vested <strong>in</strong> their creation, were fundamentally unusable after a few years. This was a problem for which they had few answers and, as they concluded, “Susta<strong>in</strong>ability rema<strong>in</strong>s an <strong>in</strong>tractable problem given the current models of fund<strong>in</strong>g and archiv<strong>in</strong>g digital resources.” Their f<strong>in</strong>al recommendations for the long-term usability of digital resources were for projects to create better documentation, develop a clear idea of their users, and consult and stay <strong>in</strong> contact with them, to develop effective technical management and support, actively dissem<strong>in</strong>ate results, and, for susta<strong>in</strong>ability, “ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> and actively update their <strong>in</strong>terface, content and functionality of the resource.” All these recommendations are relevant to the development of any last<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>frastructure for digital classics resources as well. “Traditional” Academic Use of Digital Humanities Resources Several studies have recently addressed how “traditional” (e.g., not self-identified e-humanists or digital humanists) academics and students have made use of digital resources. This section exam<strong>in</strong>es the larger f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs of this research. 578 The CSHE Study One of the largest studies to approach the question of educator use of digital resources <strong>in</strong> the social sciences and humanities was conducted by the CSHE between 2004 and 2006 (Harley et al. 2006b). This study pursued three parallel research tracks: (1) conduct<strong>in</strong>g a literature review and discussions with stakeholders to map out the types of digital resources available and where the user fit with<strong>in</strong> this universe; (2) hold<strong>in</strong>g discussions (focus groups) with and conduct<strong>in</strong>g surveys of faculty at three types of <strong>in</strong>stitutions <strong>in</strong> California, as well as with the users of various listservs, regard<strong>in</strong>g how and why they used or did not use digital resources; and (3) creat<strong>in</strong>g a methodology for how user-study results might be shared more usefully by <strong>in</strong>terview<strong>in</strong>g site owners, resource creators, and use researchers. At the same time, Harley et al. argued that the differences between <strong>in</strong>dividual discipl<strong>in</strong>es, as well as the vary<strong>in</strong>g types of users, needed to be carefully considered. “The humanities and social sciences are not a monolith, nor are user types,” Harley et al. (2006b) expla<strong>in</strong>ed; “we contend that a disaggregation of users by discipl<strong>in</strong>e and <strong>in</strong>stitution type allow us to better understand the exist<strong>in</strong>g variation <strong>in</strong> user and 578 A major new study was released <strong>in</strong> April 2011 by the Research Information Network that analyzes humanities scholars use of two major digital resources: the Old Bailey Onl<strong>in</strong>e (http://www.oldbaileyonl<strong>in</strong>e.org) and the Digital Image Archive of Medieval Music (http://www.diamm.ac.uk) and also offered case studies of digital resource use by specific humanities departments (Bulger et al. 2011).
Page 1 and 2:
"Rome Wasn
Page 3 and 4:
ii ISBN 978-1-932326-38-3 CLIR Publ
Page 5 and 6:
iv EpiDoc-Based Digital Epigraphy P
Page 7 and 8:
vi ABOUT THE AUTHOR Alison Babeu ha
Page 9 and 10:
viii PBW PCA PDB PDL PHI PLANETS PN
Page 11 and 12:
x pursuit of knowledge about the an
Page 13 and 14:
2 and intellectual
Page 15 and 16:
4 associations to work together, an
Page 17 and 18:
6 briefly explore issues that are n
Page 19 and 20:
8 for English translations of Greek
Page 21 and 22:
10 is created of the entire bibliog
Page 23 and 24:
12 directory of more than 2,100 cat
Page 25 and 26:
14 generated by the decision tree p
Page 27 and 28:
16 The image-registration algorithm
Page 29 and 30:
18 Schibel and Rydberg-Cox argued t
Page 31 and 32:
20 information ret
Page 33 and 34:
22 In ancient manuscripts, Sanskrit
Page 35 and 36:
24 algorithms; ins
Page 37 and 38:
26 Markov Models (MEMM) 82 and outp
Page 39 and 40:
28 One major project to recently em
Page 41 and 42:
30 developed a cuneiform sign reper
Page 43 and 44:
32 and prayers), and edited texts a
Page 45 and 46:
34 Digital critical editions, howev
Page 47 and 48:
36 While these requirements may see
Page 49 and 50:
38 many discrete texts, in<
Page 51 and 52:
40 examine how l<s
Page 53 and 54:
42 The second fact that Rob
Page 55 and 56:
44 “multimedia scholarly editions
Page 57 and 58:
46 different apparatuses. In Bosche
Page 59 and 60:
48 individual text
Page 61 and 62:
50 In these cases we must provide a
Page 63 and 64:
52 First, it utilizes a nearest nei
Page 65 and 66:
54 entirely pre-searched for each l
Page 67 and 68:
56 As this research in</str
Page 69 and 70:
58 the inscription
Page 71 and 72:
60 Text Min<strong
Page 73 and 74:
62 This manual analysis provided a
Page 75 and 76:
64 As illustrated by this def<stron
Page 77 and 78:
66 archaeology as a discipl
Page 79 and 80:
68 funded with public money <strong
Page 81 and 82:
70 for re-use is a simple slogan, b
Page 83 and 84:
72 framework to in
Page 85 and 86:
74 then mapped to the CRM-EH so tha
Page 87 and 88:
76 tDAR also stores all resources <
Page 89 and 90:
78 Many look to their in</s
Page 91 and 92:
80 Although the multidiscipl<strong
Page 93 and 94:
82 computer science can make it pos
Page 95 and 96:
84 were created after this time. A
Page 97 and 98:
86 transparency, accessibility, ava
Page 99 and 100:
88 (Research Archive for Ancient Sc
Page 101 and 102:
90 This challenge of not just digit
Page 103 and 104:
92 Part of the research of the Plei
Page 105 and 106:
94 After correctin
Page 107 and 108:
96 Epigraphy Overview: Epigraphy Da
Page 109 and 110:
98 step, because epigraphic texts s
Page 111 and 112:
100 text and to previous annotation
Page 113 and 114:
102 and squeezes as well as a selec
Page 115 and 116:
104 original); typ
Page 117 and 118:
106 To begin this
Page 119 and 120:
108 better set the in</stro
Page 121 and 122:
110 Another related project that ha
Page 123 and 124:
112 used to point
Page 125 and 126:
114 names in texts
Page 127 and 128:
116 and Manuscripts (VRE-SDM) 378 s
Page 129 and 130:
118 level of storage in</st
Page 131 and 132:
120 simplicity, and sensible file n
Page 133 and 134:
122 compliant DTD and schema. 393 I
Page 135 and 136:
124 While the advanced document-rec
Page 137 and 138:
126 Another significant manuscript
Page 139 and 140:
128 compelled to operate in
Page 141 and 142:
130 Cayless thus developed a method
Page 143 and 144:
132 must consider commercial and en
Page 145 and 146: 134 standard developed for the desc
Page 147 and 148: 136 to standard catalogs, identific
Page 149 and 150: 138 present an extension and comb<s
Page 151 and 152: 140 scholars in th
Page 153 and 154: 142 described as the amicitia papyr
Page 155 and 156: 144 to a full text transcription wh
Page 157 and 158: 146 The final majo
Page 159 and 160: 148 One is toward openness; the oth
Page 161 and 162: 150 this idea of personal ownership
Page 163 and 164: 152 prototype 512 in</stron
Page 165 and 166: 154 other assertions made about par
Page 167 and 168: 156 The conclusion drawn from this
Page 169 and 170: 158 and that “is main</st
Page 171 and 172: 160 philology available at the webs
Page 173 and 174: 162 descriptions that provides scho
Page 175 and 176: 164 of multilingua
Page 177 and 178: 166 Another major methodological is
Page 179 and 180: 168 ancient historians. Network ana
Page 181 and 182: 170 Bradley and Short (2005) have o
Page 183 and 184: 172 “apparently disconnected and
Page 185 and 186: 174 sources used and their abbrevia
Page 187 and 188: 176 resources, inc
Page 189 and 190: 178 materials could be found, a rec
Page 191 and 192: 180 or more documents (69 percent)
Page 193 and 194: 182 This work tends to focus on des
Page 195: 184 A related poin
Page 199 and 200: 188 accessed; few providers, if any
Page 201 and 202: 190 information so
Page 203 and 204: 192 features. In addition, while pa
Page 205 and 206: 194 postdoctoral students, who were
Page 207 and 208: 196 computers by ancient historians
Page 209 and 210: 198 Demos (a growin</strong
Page 211 and 212: 200 database of this encyclopedia c
Page 213 and 214: 202 academia.” At the same time,
Page 215 and 216: 204 granted their views of the pote
Page 217 and 218: 206 science and use ICT occasionall
Page 219 and 220: 208 also declared that the m<strong
Page 221 and 222: 210 were exceptionally diverse, as
Page 223 and 224: 212 across virtual collections of d
Page 225 and 226: 214 tradition of European literatur
Page 227 and 228: 216 the related MILARQ project, 649
Page 229 and 230: 218 initial fund<s
Page 231 and 232: 220 SPQR—Supportin</stron
Page 233 and 234: 222 environments in</strong
Page 235 and 236: 224 become less “localized” wit
Page 237 and 238: 226 methods,” Cohen et al. expla<
Page 239 and 240: 228 One might have presumed that ou
Page 241 and 242: 230 This lack of deeper understand<
Page 243 and 244: 232 expertise, tools, experience, a
Page 245 and 246: 234 All link<stron
Page 247 and 248:
236 of architecture, tools and serv
Page 249 and 250:
238 reported that eSAD was develop<
Page 251 and 252:
240 semantic tools that would make
Page 253 and 254:
242 Sustainable Pr
Page 255 and 256:
244 A recent ARL report that explor
Page 257 and 258:
246 organizations and fundi
Page 259 and 260:
248 throughout this review, i.e., o
Page 261 and 262:
250 commercial providers. At the sa
Page 263 and 264:
252 representations beyond the bord
Page 265 and 266:
254 such as Vindol
Page 267 and 268:
256 that the question of in
Page 269 and 270:
258 Linguistic Com
Page 271 and 272:
260 resources and technology overvi
Page 273 and 274:
262 According to B
Page 275 and 276:
264 support the main</stron
Page 277 and 278:
266 Interoperability”). 763 The m
Page 279 and 280:
268 as the point o
Page 281 and 282:
270 This architecture makes it easy
Page 283 and 284:
272 [Aschenbrenner et al. 2008]. As
Page 285 and 286:
274 Editions.” Advances i
Page 287 and 288:
276 [Bodard et al. 2009]. Bodard, G
Page 289 and 290:
278 [Bulger et al. 2011]. Bulger, M
Page 291 and 292:
280 [Choudhury and Stin</st
Page 293 and 294:
282 [Crane et al. 2009a]. Crane, Gr
Page 295 and 296:
284 [Dué and Ebbott 2009]. Dué, C
Page 297 and 298:
286 [Flaten 2009]. Flaten, Arne R.
Page 299 and 300:
288 [Hardwick 2000]. Hardwick, Lorn
Page 301 and 302:
290 Conference on E-Science Worksho
Page 303 and 304:
292 [Lockyear 2007]. Lockyear, Kris
Page 305 and 306:
294 Cambridge, MA: Association for
Page 307 and 308:
296 [Ntzios et al. 2007]. Ntzios, K
Page 309 and 310:
298 [Reddy and Crane 2006]. Reddy,
Page 311 and 312:
300 [Rydberg-Cox 2009]. Rydberg-Cox
Page 313 and 314:
302 [Smith 2010]. Smith, D. Neel.
Page 315 and 316:
304 and the Canadian Academic Commu
Page 317 and 318:
306 [Wallom et al. 2009]. Wallom, D
show all

Rome Wasn't Digitized in a Day - Council on Library and Information ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?