From IntereditionWiki



- formalities: attendance list, organisation, not strict agendas

- Report by Karina on WG1 progress: WG membership may shift according to needs of the project. Website is up

- Survey, Karina: any thoughts? Edward useful, but formulating the questions is difficult. It's difficult getting people to formulate what their (digital) needs are. Small German survey showed nobody wanted what 'we want'. Karina/Edward: no essay questions. What audience, what goals. James: quality survey, not the horrible usability studies we've seen. Susan: what discipline, subsurveys for time periods/literature/music? Edward: postpone survey? Susan: two phases, what first, specifics later. Cummings: 1) requirements hunting, 2) usability.

Karina: dependencies for other WG's. Peter: first find out what there is. Fill in the gaps. Existing surveys don't tell what people will want in future. Karina: 1) list of surveys. Joris: need someone appointed to the task

Edward: shall i do it? (10k word essay, general overview) Joris; specific topic Dino: filling in the gaps (as Peter said). Ask people what they want. Do not impose model for digital edition, but offer tools to create their model. Not the huge task of general overview, but what do you expect from development. Andrea: allow people to specialise specific model, general modelling rules with the ability to let users make them more specific. Not specific one app per edition, but a framework for modelling edition. I have an idea on how to hand out this method, working on a draft piece that I can give you.

Karina: general feeling of WG: inclusive (domain, times, subjects)? Frederico: what user groups to target (experts on digital tools or inexperienced users). First survey to learn what questions to ask.

James: poeple should maybe describe how their digital editions differs from others.

Susan: what do we want to give people? How much expertise do they need?

Joris: schizophrenic advancing interoperable technology for digital editions versus usability and requirements study for end users

Malte: who do we mean by users?

Joris: at least the end user (reader), nut also the innovators

Susan/Edward: what do we define as user. Reader or scholar? Susan: Maybe target groups according to the phases of the project. Edward: we do not need to recreate the debate on the user (years of material is available) There's enough literature on that, user groups are still the same.

Karina: we agree to approach not only the makers but also the readers

Frederico: There's an interesting article on how we could turn the ambiguity that Joris was referring to into an advance. Matrix for perspectives on the matter from different levels of expertise and knowledge.

Dino: we may be ambitious: try to create a reference point for people.

James: WG's should provide questions that they what answered, WG1 should then do the actual surveying

Karina: indeed, WG1 should organize Dino: WG1 is an interface between the public and the other Working Groups.

Terje: Good idea to just have the list of who's doing what, to generate the target groups who we are going to ask these questions.

Susan: maybe use the Methods network approach (as we are)? Karina: is that a format/schema we may use? (yes) James/Joris: regenerating, a lot of editing everywhere? Susan: interoperable databases, showing by doing? (together with King's)

Joris: so 1) going to do the showing by doing (interoperable stuff), 2) what we can do right now

Eric: is there a definition on what a digital scholarly etc.? You have to do the literature survey.

Edward: that's done, but trouble is that it leads to debate on what model. There's a huge problem with definitions.

Susan: what about the words (electronic critical edition)?

Dino: You can disagree endlessly on the form and models and theoretic bases. Whatever about TEI: it did boost interoperability.

Eric: so it CAN be defined, what interoperable is

Andrea: Structuring data and datasets for reuse

Peter: survey on how interoperable the current editions are? Much better than just 'what's out there?' Word is not interoperable.

Malte: is there a good reference, example in existence?

Fredrico: there's some work in the digital library, harvesting.

Terje: we can't start excluding people who are using proprietary tools.

James: we should offer the tools that they can use to make their editions more interoperable.

Joris: discussion piece, like the essay of Edward, on interoperability to start defining interoperability (text over soap as an basic example)

Malte: elaborate example, sharing databases for visualization

Dino: it's a spectrum of interoperability from plain ascii exchange to very structured texts. How you could build up such a layered added value of interoperability should be part of the roadmap.

Marin: project in France, makers of editions can fill out form. It rates gold, bronze etc. on how good a project is doing on the matter.

Malte: this might look like the TEI support

Frederico: TEI is a brilliant social interoperable tool (lots of projects), but not on a technical level (name but one project!)

Peter: we all agree (by sitting here) that there is a need for interoperability. But we should show just how to do that: if I ask for some piece of a texts we should show that it is returned.

James: problems with allowance to use text, access, openess. Non openess would qualify interoperability as low.

Peter: TextGrid is also about defining the interoperability, by determining how we can interchange texts.

Susan: do we want to talk good practices?

Karina: that's the sort of reflection that WG4 shouls answer?

Dino: to define the metric for interoperability, can it be defined by the amount of information and reliability of the service?

(action points so far: 1) piece on what we mean by interoperability (Peter), 2) piece on what has been done by Edward (Edward), 3) what surveys to conduct to which target groups?)

Karina: who wants to compile the list of important networked, projects, people. Goal: reach out, identify who to conduct survey to? (Karina) Frederico: related projects. Terje: categorization, classification of projects/networks etc.

Peter: shoot at my piece, then we should make somekind of definition what WE mean by interoperability.

Dino: what about the role of libraries, librarians. Karina: could be reahed through the Library Europeana. (Karina)

Karina: polling? Joris: it's about what tools to use for the surveys. Susan: surveymonkey.

Malte: everyone should register to be able to edit and change.

Joris: we should be as open editable as possible. I'll provide manual, install spam capturing.

Karina/Joris: about the over ocean possibilities. Susan: quite a lot of possibilities (MORA, MONK, Tapor, NINES). Andrea: possibility to discuss the problems with Perseus. Susan: just a page withe the project names, short description, PI. Frederico: Nines looks most similar, and there's Bamboo. Susan: trouble is that none of the project's produce anything, only Tapor (and they would have another methodology now). Dino: is Nines alive (McGann is retyring etc.)? Susan: very much so, next summer school in Dublin. But they're not on digital edition, it's resource discovery for digital and non digital objects alike. It's not about interoperability.

Susan: Nora and Monk show the break down when different models for structuring are to be interoperable, TextGrid has a very other approach. It's also about the models you use.

Frederico: Neil Smith CTS (Canonical Text Services).

James: In project on standardizing medieval manuscript description.

Frederico: OAI-ORE (Open Archives Initiative - Object Reuse and Exchange (Frederico)

Joris: James mentioned sustainability, what do we do about that? Karina: should be one of the requirements. Andrea: funding strategies.

Karina: budget-wise large scale intercontinental connections should be budgeted by way of the MC.

Time and place of next meeting of WG1: postpone to WG4 (only then we will know what we need) Andrea Bozzi has suggested Pisa as the meeting place.

Closing by Karina (12.15)