From IntereditionWiki

Minutes of the Working Group 1 meeting, 6 May 2009
Royal Irish Academy, Dublin

(The original agenda for this meeting is at Dublin-2009-05-agenda.)

Chair: Karina van Dalen-Oskam (KvD)
Attendees: Tara Andrews (TLA), Daniel Apollon (DA), Tomasz Parkoła (TP), Susan Schreibman (SS), Edward Vanhoutte (EV), Eric Zimmerman (EZ)

1. Apologies of action chair, Joris van Zundert, given by KvD

2. News & report by Working Group leader (KvD)

  • COST action members: Israel as of beginning of 2009, and Macedonia; application from Poland in process; recent query from Bulgaria. Goal was to get a new partner every six months on average; this is well on track.
  • Previous meetings and results:
    • First meeting was in Oulu, where the object was to discuss the action and got people interested.
    • Second meeting was in Birmingham, where all Working Groups met. This WG discussed many things, decided on many actions, but since then not a lot has happened.
  • So we need to address how to keep things going in future.

3. Role and purposes of Working Group 1.

KvD: This from the Memorandum of Understanding on the goals we were set over the four years of the action: Year 1: inventory of related projects on a European and global level Year 2: start of (coordination) of dissemination of first results (e.g. arranging that concrete research results are presented at suitable conferences) We have not quite delivered as promised for year 1, so we need to focus on tasks from both years 1 and 2.

The remainder of the morning was taken up by a long discussion of who should be targeted in any Interedition dissemination action. The discussion, summarized here by KvD, also produced this model diagram[link] of a "chain" or "cycle" of critical edition dissemination.

Possible levels of target groups:

  1. Contributors ('scholars as editors')
  2. Users ('scholars as users')
  3. Readers ('general readers')

Readers can become Users. Users can become Contributors. For both, contributors are the gatekeepers.

Influence on the chain from the top down: ICT help and the data. Possible influence on all levels: Publishers and Digital Libraries

We decided that dissemination to all groups is important, but that limitations in time and capacities makes our priorities the level of the Contributors and the Users. We will have to leave the Readers the target group of e.g. active Users and Contributors. Our main priorities lies with the other two.

4. Inward dissemination

4.1 Overview of existing surveys & studies on digital scholarly editing and interoperability

  • EV to give an overview of the existing surveys, provided that he receives input from others concerning what projects (and therefore what surveys) this should include. Others who know of projects should point him to those projects and he will get the information. Apropos:
  • EV to draw up list of things he knows of, send it around for additional input, first to WG members and then to whole group.
  • How should we organize those last steps - looking at the survey results & evaluating them? First try to find out what's out there, then we can go from there to see what we should do next.

4.2 Key research organizations (digital libraries?) and researchers that should be consulted to further the aim of 'Interedition'

  • EV: Each member should look at his own country to identify people and/or organizations who might be involved.
  • TLA: Libraries and/or publishers?
  • EV/SS: What would we do with these publishers and digital libraries?
  • TLA: We want them to know what is coming; we want acknowledgment from librarians / etc. that the editions we produce will be able to find homes in their institutions. Basic agreement in principle.
  • SS: Libraries / publishers: maybe we should approach the Digital Library Federation for contact and preliminary cooperation, rather than individual institutions.
  • TP: Digital libraries very close to this issue. Give us the content we should preserve, and we will do it. There is issue of open standards of course * choose them, use them to submit the content.
  • DA: But perhaps we should have the roadmap and then go to the libraries / publishers to disseminate that.

4.3 Proactive survey on projects and networks that pertain to Interedition (eg. Bamboo, Nora, Monk, Nines, Tapor, Perseus, TextGrid, Juxta, Talia, Canonical Text Services, Library Europeana)

  • MC members should be responsible for identifying projects in their own countries not already associated with Interedition, and make them known to the group.
  • TLA to take this list, and to compile a list of projects that are already associated with Interedition, and get this list (with suitable descriptive text) on the website. This was originally an item from the Pisa meeting in March '09.

4.4 Identification of funding calls relevant to Interedition (see below; deferred until after 5.2)

5. Outward dissemination

5.1 Operational strategy for maintaining the Wiki at www.interedition.eu
5.2 Suggestions for a 'table of contents' for the Interedition Wiki

  • If the wiki can be considered a publication, we can get publications funding to help maintain it. The disadvantage is that less funding will be available for actual report dissemination. This was something mentioned by the ESF officer at the action kick-off meeting in Brussels.
  • Things to be on the wiki:
    • List of projects
    • Survey of surveys (c.f. 4.1 above); EV's data collection can be done there.
    • Discussions such as the morning's discussion of target audiences for dissemination (c.f. 3 above).
    • Schedule of meetings, list of past meetings
    • Working Group leaders to update their portion of the wiki.
    • Use the website to generate discussion about digital scholarly editions, in the form of a blog and/or guest columns.
    • Have MC formally appoint editors for this column, who could approach contributors.
    • Possibly a list of relevant upcoming meetings outside the auspices of Interedition. For this we would want a list of links to overview sites &c.

4.4 (revisited) Identification of funding calls relevant to Interedition

  • There were two 7th Framework proposal parts recently concerning dissemination and open access. The deadline for that is too soon for us to act, but we should consider future FP7 calls.
  • Generally the work on making a proposal must start well before the proposal is published. Need to identify someone who has sufficient resources from a backing institution to lead the proposal.
  • Two FP7 calls coming up that we could target: call 5 will be published in July, ending in November; call 6 will end in April 2010. Were we to target the April call, we could set aside time during the ESTS conference for those who wished to be involved in the proposal.
  • We should consider coordinating with the A32 action.

5.3 Identification of conferences, symposiums etc. to be targeted as dissemination occasions for Interedition

  • ESTS conference in Brussels, 18-19 November. We can have a pre-conference workshop there
  • Digital Humanities conference at King's College London in 2010. That would be a very good conference for which to target a workshop.
  • DRHA conference in September '09 is another possibility for a poster (paper proposal deadline was 15 May.)
  • One idea is to organize smaller national meetings in each member country, to culminate in the workshop at King's in 2010.
  • KvD to make a schedule of the conferences & meetings we'd like to attend, describe the idea of national meetings, and ask MC if it is feasible for them. If so, draw up template that can be a guideline for the national meetings.