|
|
COMPUTER SCIENCE
|
University of Pennsylvania
Music Building, 201 S. 34th Street,
Philadelphia, PA
11 February 2000
March 8, 2000
revised March 15
Overview of Project
Name of the Committee
Questionnaire
Workshop Participants
Next Steps
Workshop Name
Computer Scientists
Attendees:
Kate Keller, co-chair, convened the meeting at 10:15 a.m.
Green gave us updated copies of the "Project Summary: Building Blocks: Intellectual Needs Shaping Technical Solutions" and reviewed the structure, recent activities, and ongoing projects of the Building Blocks Project.
Brooks asked why the name of the committee had been changed from "Performance" to "Performing Arts." She reported that the President of her Society was concerned that the new name does not represent the field in the most up-to-date terminology. We tabled that discussion until lunchtime at which time we agreed that the new name is the most commonly used term for what we actually represent.
Discussion turned to the Questionnaire, whose purpose is to kick-start the Workshop agenda. The terminology has changed slightly this document is to be called "Initial Questions" (IQ). Green noted that the copy that we circulated today was not the most recent version. Bob Keller had downloaded it from the NINCH website on 2/9/00. Green will check into this. During discussion, points made or suggested included the following:
We felt that March 15 was a reasonable date to expect people begin work on the Initial Questions. We recommend a two-week window for completion. Realistically, the workshop should be in the fall; we recommend the 3rd weekend in September.
Once the list is final with all nominees having accepted the task, an email will be sent on March 15 to each person with the IQ document either within the message or linked to a form on the NINCH website. The document will be self-explanatory and can be returned by email to the NINCH office or by filling out the form and posting it to the NINCH site.
There was some misunderstanding about this aspect of the project. As it stands now, each response will be posted (probably individually) in a restricted access site on the NINCH website. We will each be responsible to review all responses. At the invitation of Hildy, the committee will meet in late May or early June in College Park to collate our reviews and make recommendations for the Workshop.
a. We then turned to the task of selecting participants for the Workshop. We selected 17 workshop participant nominees first, holding 8 names as alternates. We worked from the following spread of concentrations:
(2) scholars (both junior and senior) actively involved with a digital research project
(2) scholars (both junior and senior) neutral about digital projects
(2) scholars (both junior and senior) actively involved with a digital teaching project
(2) "public humanists" (curator, educator, media maker, etc.)
(2) research/special collections librarians
(1) archivist
(1) journal editor
(1) publisher
(1) discipline-based information technologist/manager
(2) computer scientists
(1) administrator engaged in issues of scholarly communication
Others:
We agreed that we probably now have enough people on our lists who have agreed to participate. We also agreed that we would not notify the Workshop selectees until the date of the Workshop has been settled. Green indicated that that date should be settled within a week or two.
We agreed that each of us will write to our own nominees to inform them of the extent of their participation in the project. If any Workshop selectee cannot make the dates, we agreed that the field (i.e., theater, music, or dance) that lost a participant should replace that person with another from its field. We should keep in touch with Bob Keller who will coordinate the collection of names, email addresses, mailing addresses, and institutional affiliations.
Once the Workshop Participant list is set, all on the list above (nominees and alternates) will receive the IQ, plus the following: Peri Shamsai, Judy Tsou, Tom Grey, Julie Noblit, and all others on our lists who have accepted the nomination to participate.
a. We discussed this as a title and think that it really is a Symposium, not a workshop; i.e., a conversation, not a training event.
Hildy and Maciag suggested that we need to look at the summary of the project in Green's "Project Summary: Building Blocks: Intellectual Needs Shaping Technical Solutions." A portion of the project seems to be missing in our plans. Under "Objectives" the summary states that this is to be a conversation between "humanities professionals and computer and information scientists." What we are doing may not match the rhetoric of the proposal. By gathering to talk among ourselves about technology-based projects and problems, we would be repeating work already being done at our own conferences. As the summary suggests, we need to bring in the scientists÷the code writers. They too need to have read the responses to the questionnaires. They need to come to us with some understanding of what we are trying to accomplish. After listening to us and talking with us, they may have a better idea of our needs, perhaps proposing entirely different ways of doing things than we ourselves envision. It is this interface that is the core and strength of the NINCH proposal. We are the humanities professionals. Some of us are using computer knowledge and ability to do our work, but we are not the scientists. It was the opportunity to interact with them that we presented to our nominees when we invited them to participate in the project. The Committee felt that by ourselves we cannot achieve the goal of the project. Our lists of participants must relate to the results we wish to achieve. The committee recommends that there be a 6th panel at the workshop, one of the computer and information scientists. We are willing to reduce the number of our own participants in order to allow funds for these people and for good plenary speakers. Frank and Gary can help make the connections. They suggest excellent people from specific programs at MIT, Georgia Tech, RPI, or Kansas.
The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Robert Keller
Co-chair
|
|
Top of Page |
BUILDING
|
