Difference between revisions of "Upcoming meetings"

From IntereditionWiki

Line 1: Line 1:
 
The next meeting of Working Group 1, European Dimension, is planned for Dublin, May 6th 2009.   
 
The next meeting of Working Group 1, European Dimension, is planned for Dublin, May 6th 2009.   
 +
 +
MEETING OF WORKING GROUP 1 'European Dimension'
 +
Date and time
 +
May 6th, 2009; 09.00 – 18:00
 +
Meeting place and address
 +
Digital Humanities Observatory
 +
Pembroke House
 +
28-32 Upper Pembroke Street
 +
Dublin 2, IRELAND
 +
Local organisers
 +
Susan Schreibman
 +
Chair
 +
Karina van Dalen-Oskam
 +
 +
 +
  
 
Proposed agenda (based on the mail of Joris van Zundert, Chair of the Action, from 16 April 2009):
 
Proposed agenda (based on the mail of Joris van Zundert, Chair of the Action, from 16 April 2009):
  
1 Welcome by Working Group Leader and Chair of the Meeting Ms. Karina van Dalen
+
1 Welcome by Working Group Leader and Chair of the Meeting Ms. Karina van Dalen-Oskam
  
 
2 News and report by the Working Group Leader
 
2 News and report by the Working Group Leader

Revision as of 12:31, 4 May 2009

The next meeting of Working Group 1, European Dimension, is planned for Dublin, May 6th 2009.

MEETING OF WORKING GROUP 1 'European Dimension' Date and time May 6th, 2009; 09.00 – 18:00 Meeting place and address Digital Humanities Observatory Pembroke House 28-32 Upper Pembroke Street Dublin 2, IRELAND Local organisers Susan Schreibman Chair Karina van Dalen-Oskam



Proposed agenda (based on the mail of Joris van Zundert, Chair of the Action, from 16 April 2009):

1 Welcome by Working Group Leader and Chair of the Meeting Ms. Karina van Dalen-Oskam

2 News and report by the Working Group Leader

3 Short introduction on role and purposes of Working Group 1

4 'Inward' dissemination aspects:

4.1 overview of existing surveys and studies on digital scholarly editing and interoperability

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

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)

4.4 identification of funding calls relevant to Interedition

5 'Outward' dissemination aspects:

5.1 operational strategy for maintaining the Wiki at www.interedition.eu

5.2 suggestions for a 'table of contents' for the Interedition Wiki

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

5.4 manifest on interoperability


Additional information It's unrealistic to expect that we will be able to gather and discuss all information the items on the agenda ask for. It would be good to identify at the start of the meeting reachable goals and focus on those few aspects. For items and aspects that remain untreated or undiscussed it would be good to have a 'road map' for Working Group 1 on how to progress in 2009/2010 with these items.

ad 4.1. At the Birmingham meeting it was concluded that Edward Vanhoutte's work on this was a good starting point, maybe even his results would suffice. It needs to be discussed if and how Edwards material needs to be amended with additional survey information. Also there's the issue of how Interedtion should again disseminate this information further (should it go on the website? in what form? who will do that?). Further more it was decided that Peter Robinson would produce a piece on interoperable infrastructure for digital scholarly editing. Presumably this document: http://www.interedition.eu/index.php/WG2:Architecture. It should be discussed in what ways and how this document should be disseminated inward towards the Interedition members to further mutual understanding; and outward towards other relevant parties by way of documentation on the website an relevant occasions (cf. 5.3.) In case of identified surveys to be carried out, the method of surveying should be decided (using Surveymonkey was one suggestion, but we also need an operational plan to actually do the surveys).

ad 4.3. At the Pisa meeting it was decided that a good way to disseminate projects and networks relevant to Interedition both inward and outward would be to contribute very short (one paragraph) descriptions on such projects to a public page on the website. Selected Interedition members would be writing those descriptions for such projects and networks both represented within Interedition and and not. These descriptions would primarily focus on the relevancy of such projects and networks for Interedition's goals. Subsequently representatives of those projects would be asked to reflect on what we produced, hopefully triggering more input (hence 'proactive'). Although a good idea, no work has been done on it. Even a list on the site to start of with would at this point be a gain. (As would be an operational strategy on how to fill it.)

ad 4.4. Susan Schreibman suggested we should take a look at themes 2.1 and 2.4 of the EU ICT PSP call 2009 (http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/ict_psp/documents/ict_psp_wp2009.pdf). Meanwhile we have realized that the deadline for that call is in all likelihood too stiff. However, it was decided in the Pisa meeting that we should seek relevant calls for further funding Interedition, if possible even this year. Identifying relevant calls would therefor be paramount.

ad 5.1. We need a better strategy of updating the site than none (which is the de facto situation).

ad 5.3. In Pisa the Interedition members wanted to target the MLA Convention December 2009 as a first dissemination possibility for Interedition's goals. It's meanwhile questionable whether this is a reachable goal. Relevant occasions should be identified (or a plan on how to identify such occasions). If possible an operational plan should be developed on how to target those events.

ad 5.4. In Birmingham it was decided that Interedition should at least produce a clearly written statement or manifest on what the members understand by 'interoperability'. This short and lucent manifest should then be put on the website and could be used in dissemination in other relevant situations. The Working Group 3 'Strategic IT Recommendations' meeting in Birmingham has produced considerable (but rather unstructured and undeveloped) input for such a manifest. Other sources that could be drawn from are Fotis Jannidis' input for that meeting and (so was suggested) the results of discussing Peter discussion piece (cf. 4.1).