OSCE Programme: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Markup) |
m (links) |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
* argument: the eScience methodologies offer a powerful technological framework for digital research. These technologies need to be exploited for digital authoring, collaborative text editing, wide dissemination, and effective processing of available texts. | * argument: the eScience methodologies offer a powerful technological framework for digital research. These technologies need to be exploited for digital authoring, collaborative text editing, wide dissemination, and effective processing of available texts. | ||
* presenter: Stuart Dunn ([[ | * presenter: Stuart Dunn ([[OSCE Dunn Paper]]) | ||
* responder: Nathan Lea | * responder: Nathan Lea | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
* argument: The computational analysis of digital editions needs both a large enough corpus and a degree of deep encoding—any given textual project needs to find its own balance between these two. The field as a whole and any repository need to be able to accept and handle texts with a minimal layer of markup as well as more richly encoded versions. | * argument: The computational analysis of digital editions needs both a large enough corpus and a degree of deep encoding—any given textual project needs to find its own balance between these two. The field as a whole and any repository need to be able to accept and handle texts with a minimal layer of markup as well as more richly encoded versions. | ||
* presenter: Gregory Crane ([[ | * presenter: Gregory Crane ([[OSCE Crane Paper]]) | ||
* responder: Melissa Terras | * responder: Melissa Terras | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
* argument: Large-scale digital projects make it possible, and even essential, that scholars work together to achieve multi-disciplinary work that is entirely within no one person's expertise. There are managerial and technological issues to be addressed with any collaborative project. | * argument: Large-scale digital projects make it possible, and even essential, that scholars work together to achieve multi-disciplinary work that is entirely within no one person's expertise. There are managerial and technological issues to be addressed with any collaborative project. | ||
* presenter: Ross Scaife ([[ | * presenter: Ross Scaife ([[OSCE Scaife Paper]]) | ||
* responder: Simon Mahony | * responder: Simon Mahony | ||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
* argument: Scholarship has always depended on transparency and availability of source texts and arguments, and these features need to be carried over into legal licensing of digital editions. | * argument: Scholarship has always depended on transparency and availability of source texts and arguments, and these features need to be carried over into legal licensing of digital editions. | ||
* presenter: Sayeed Choudhury ([[ | * presenter: Sayeed Choudhury ([[OSCE Choudhury Paper]]) | ||
* responder: Brian Fuchs ([[ | * responder: Brian Fuchs ([[OSCE Fuchs Response]]) | ||
=== Registries/referencing === | === Registries/referencing === | ||
* argument: The proliferation of different kinds of critical digital texts need to be identified according to a standard registry—even if the hosting is distributed—if protocols of referencing are to be usefully consistent. | * argument: The proliferation of different kinds of critical digital texts need to be identified according to a standard registry—even if the hosting is distributed—if protocols of referencing are to be usefully consistent. | ||
* presenter: Neel Smith ([[ | * presenter: Neel Smith ([[OSCE Smith Paper]]) | ||
* responder: Juan Garcés ([[ | * responder: Juan Garcés ([[OSCE Garces Response]]) | ||
=== Authority/Peer Review === | === Authority/Peer Review === | ||
* argument: Digital editions, particularly in a collaborative framework, need both traditional means of quality assurance and new approaches. | * argument: Digital editions, particularly in a collaborative framework, need both traditional means of quality assurance and new approaches. | ||
* presenter: Daniel Deckers / Lutz Koch ([[ | * presenter: Daniel Deckers / Lutz Koch ([[OSCE Deckers Paper]]) | ||
* responder: Dolores Iorizzo | * responder: Dolores Iorizzo | ||
Latest revision as of 14:16, 29 January 2007
Friday 22nd September 2006, Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
7 Arundel Street, London, WC2R 3DX (map)
9.30 Coffee
9.50 Introduction
10.00 Session 1: critical editions
Digital Editions and the Philologist
- argument: The agenda and research goals of philologists need to be kept in mind—even if modified and enhanced—when using digital technologies to create, edit, and study texts.
- presenter: Charlotte Roueché (OSCE Roueche Paper)
- responder: Stephen Oakley
Markup
- argument: XML (and within it especially TEI) offers both a solid standard for text markup as well as limitations which have to be managed in a collaborative framework. Depth of markup may be a hindrance as well as an advantage of this technology.
- presenter: Gabriel Bodard (OSCE Bodard Paper)
- responder: Notis Toufexis (OSCE Toufexis Response)
11.00 Coffee
11.30 Session 2: technologies
eScience/VRE/Grid
- argument: the eScience methodologies offer a powerful technological framework for digital research. These technologies need to be exploited for digital authoring, collaborative text editing, wide dissemination, and effective processing of available texts.
- presenter: Stuart Dunn (OSCE Dunn Paper)
- responder: Nathan Lea
Depth and Scale
- argument: The computational analysis of digital editions needs both a large enough corpus and a degree of deep encoding—any given textual project needs to find its own balance between these two. The field as a whole and any repository need to be able to accept and handle texts with a minimal layer of markup as well as more richly encoded versions.
- presenter: Gregory Crane (OSCE Crane Paper)
- responder: Melissa Terras
Collaboration
- argument: Large-scale digital projects make it possible, and even essential, that scholars work together to achieve multi-disciplinary work that is entirely within no one person's expertise. There are managerial and technological issues to be addressed with any collaborative project.
- presenter: Ross Scaife (OSCE Scaife Paper)
- responder: Simon Mahony
13.00 Lunch
14.00 Session 3: protocols
Licensing/Open Source
- argument: Scholarship has always depended on transparency and availability of source texts and arguments, and these features need to be carried over into legal licensing of digital editions.
- presenter: Sayeed Choudhury (OSCE Choudhury Paper)
- responder: Brian Fuchs (OSCE Fuchs Response)
Registries/referencing
- argument: The proliferation of different kinds of critical digital texts need to be identified according to a standard registry—even if the hosting is distributed—if protocols of referencing are to be usefully consistent.
- presenter: Neel Smith (OSCE Smith Paper)
- responder: Juan Garcés (OSCE Garces Response)
Authority/Peer Review
- argument: Digital editions, particularly in a collaborative framework, need both traditional means of quality assurance and new approaches.
- presenter: Daniel Deckers / Lutz Koch (OSCE Deckers Paper)
- responder: Dolores Iorizzo
15.30 Tea
16.00 Session 4: open discussion
Summary and further topics to be discussed
- chair: Juan Garcés
Values of traditional scholarship
- chair: Brian Fuchs
Future Strategies
- chair: Gregory Crane