Feb 2012Teldap, Taipai1 Creativity, Collaboration, Convergence and the change from print to a digital environment: Theme and case study. (Also Friday 09:30

Feb 2012 Teldap, Taipai 1

Creativity, Collaboration, Convergence and the change from print to a digital environment:

Theme and case study.(Also Friday 09:30 ECAI)

Michael BucklandElectronic Cultural Atlas Initiative, and School of Information, University of California, Berkeley.

Benefiting from the Work of Others


If this scholar were working on the same topic as you, then you would want to share ideas, notes, and prior work – and ideally work in the same room!


But sharing the same workspace is impractical for many reasons.

Theme: How can we come close to this ideal?



Sharing workspace is impractical for many reasons:• Distance• Institutional constraints• Cost• Inflexible• Does not scale• Time differences: Interests change. Researchers die!

We converge and collaborate indirectly by depending on documents through publication and bibliography.


A Case Study: Preparing Scholarly Editions The Humanities depend on access to historically important documents –

which need explanation. Hence scholarly editions, including:

Berkeley: Papers of Emma Goldman, 1869-1940, Anarchist.

New York: Papers of Margaret

Sanger, 1879-1966, birth control activist


A Case Study: Documentary Editing

Documentary editors prepare “editions” of documents (letters, diaries, and other writings) that value as evidence for political, intellectual or social history. Editors add explain the context (people, places, events) through notes and commentary.

Documentary editions always have transcribed texts and explanatory notes.

Sometimes chronologies and images of original documents.

Sometimes explanatory essays on the background.

This requires special expertise and extensive research for many years.

Funding is difficult.


A Case Study: Limitations of Print Editions

Print editions are slow, expensive and require detailed research to provide contextual explanations as commentary, footnotes, etc.

Editors make notes about evidence, reasoning and uncertainties.

Publishers limit notes to lower cost reducing benefit from editors’ work.


A Case Study: Preparing Scholarly Editions The same limitations apply with Sanger papers.

Much of editors’ careful research is not made available.

Goldman and Sanger were active in the same environment and interacted with the same people. So the editors’ work is duplicative as well as partly wasted.

If only they could share the same offices!

This duplication and waste extends to other related editorial projects also and scholars everywhere.

Editors notes (evidence and reasoning) are mostly discarded.


A Case Study: A Digital Remedy Save as .html ! Make editors’ notes available in full as early as possible on a webpage regardless of what happens in the eventual published edition. Immediately available. Indexed by Google, etc.

Notes in memory or handwritten

Notes, clippings, images. in folders, boxes,

Brief notes in published volume

Notes keyed or scanned

Files in digital repositories

Detailed notes rapidly web accessible

More a change in work practice than a technical challenge. Published on the Web

Published

Ideas Working notes Notes


A Case Study: editorsnotes.org Documents --- Topics --- Notes


A Case Study: Sample Editor’s Note


Converge via Publication and Bibliography

In practice we collaborate with the work of others by depending on documents through publication and bibliography.

The Editors’ Notes project extend the notion of publication by making notes accessible – like the 19th century Notes and queries.

Notes are made across the Humanities: Archivists, translators, historians, curators, . . .

Preserve the Notes as a ‘workshop’ – active or lightly hibernating.

Reverse the relationship between notes and publications: Now publisher volumes are the result and notes are lost. Instead make Notes the primary resource, with published volumes as valuable by-products.


Discover and Select the Work of Others

Publication is not enough. Many different problems must be resolved before the work of others can be used:

1. Discovery: Does a suitable data set exist? 2. Location: Where is a copy? 3. Permission: May I use it?4. Too deteriorated and/or obsolete to use?5. Interoperability: Standardized enough to be usable?6. Description: It is clear enough what the data represent?7. Trust: Origin, lineage, version, and error rate acceptable?

Modernized bibliography -- for description and selection.http://www.asist.org/Bulletin/Aug-11/AugSep11_Buckland.pdf


The Notes – Book Relationship

So far, the published volumes are the only objective.

When volumes published, the working notes are not saved.

Working notes not kept. The book is only result.


Reverse the Notes – Book Relationship

‘Publishing’ more of scholars’ working notes

makes more of it is available for everyone to use.

Notes onweb

Morebooks by

morepeople.


Preserve the Workshop!

Preserving the working notes allows the ‘workshop’ become a permanent resource with the books as by-products.

A continuing Web accessible resource to be used and added to by other, later scholars elsewhere to generate future volumes.

Working notes are everywhere in the Humanities: curators, archivists, translators, historians, . . .

Harvest notes across many communities for ‘digital humanities.’

Source reference for linked data.

The more the notes are made a primary resource the closer we -- converge on a work of others and -- can collaborate on shared resources.


• Liberate the notes!• Expand ‘publication’ to notes• Notes as a primary resource• Expand ‘library’• Published volumes as derivative• Modernize bibliography • Preserve the ‘workshop’• Make work environment closer to a shared office (convergence), enable collaboration, and support creativity.

More at ECAI workshop Friday 09:30.

Agenda

I thank the A. W. Mellon Foundation and of the Coleman Fung Foundation for support and the project collaborators.

ecai.org/mellon2010ecai.org/KnowledgeUnixeditorsnotes.org