The project I plan to remediate is an informational speech I was required to give for my public speaking class in the Fall of 2011 over Stephen King. Generally, the purpose of informational speeches is to either educate, persuade, entertain, or simply inform the audience about the subject of the speech. In my case, my goal was a little bit of all of these things. The main purpose was to inform my audience about King's biography and to educate them about the philanthropic, social, and educational impacts the author has had on the state of Maine, but I also wanted to entertain them and to persuade them to respect and admire the author in the same way I do.
I imagine my project will draw more on hypermediacy than transparency, as the angle I imagine taking with this project is an audio-visual approach. I would like to create a website which would have a soundbite of my voice giving the speech while still and moving images, along with hyperlinks to outside resources, would reinforce and remediate my words. However, this project could have traces of transparency, as well, as the audience would be able to feel as though they were experiencing my speech in person through the soundbite. It would be, as a take on what B&G so fondly reference from Strange Days, "not my speech, only better," because along with my speech would be resources available to help illustrate my points.
The action of illustration brings me to my next point - Unsworth's primitives. I see illustration and referring as close relatives, especially for my project. Illustration would appear through the use of moving and still images, while referring would appear through hyperlinking. I would like to include clips from King's films and still images of the covers of some of his books. In this case, those visuals would serve as illustrations while the hyperlinks would be "referring." Sampling will also occur, as there is no way my speech could cover all of King's life or all of his works, including works authored and works within the community. Annotating will also likely make an appearance, as my illustrations and references will need some explanation.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Remediated Spaces
Bolter and Grusin's chapter Remediated Spaces looks at physical and non-physical public spaces within the world which refashion or which have been refashioned by media. Much of the chapter is dedicated to a discussion on the hypermediation and transparency of theme and amusement parks, with much of the focus on Disneyland and Disney World. It then progresses into a look into remediation as it appears in city centers of Europe and the shopping mall of America. Bolter and Grusin cite the work of Augé heavily, who coined the idea of a nonplace. The authors consider cyberspace itself a nonplace, and conclude the chapter with a study of the theology of cyberspace.
The chapter deals heavily with theory and therefore connects closely with the chapters on the theory of Mediation and Remediation and Networks of Remediation. Let's start with the fun stuff: Disneyland/Disney World. Here is a place where hypermediation and transparency are juxtaposed - they are able to exist as one. B& G state that hypermediacy is apparent not only in the "electric light and sound but with specific references and remediations of particular Disney films, songs, and animated characters" (p. 170). At the same time, transparency exists by giving visitors the chance to step into the films they have seen by riding rides which reenact a certain part of the movie of meeting the famous characters they see on film. B&G are careful to point out that while these experiences may not be "transparent" for most adults, they surely are for children who think the experiences and characters are authentic.
B&G refer back to the the concept of "economic repurposing" in their discussion of Disney, as well. Just like a company like Marvel might make a comic book into a movie, Disney made films and television shows into a mediated space, the amusement park. This is not in rivalry of the predecessor, but in mutual relation. As B&G assert in Networks of Remediations, "A medium in our culture can never operate in isolation, because it must enter into relationships of respect and rivalry with other media" (p. 65). In the case of economic repurposing, there is no rivalry - only respect. If the films do well, so will the amusement park. And so on.
B&G's reference to Augé's idea of nonplaces is intriguing. They mention shopping malls, city centers, airports, train stations, and Cyberspace all as nonplaces in that all of these places have a "quality of detachment." In other words, if you were to be plopped down in one of them, you would have little indication of where you were in the world. They are, in fact, detached from the world around them. B&G note that these places are ripe with hypermediacy and also only function as public places during their hours of operation.
This is where the theology of Cyberspace comes into play. I believe Cyberspace does not meet the criteria of a nonplace in that it acts as a public place at all hours of the day - it is never turned off or shut down. However, thinking of Cyberspace as a mediated space in its own - a space which a person can actually feel as if they may enter into and interact with - revolutionizes the human conception of space. This sort of theology is something which requires further examination to fully (ok, even somewhat) comprehend.
The chapter deals heavily with theory and therefore connects closely with the chapters on the theory of Mediation and Remediation and Networks of Remediation. Let's start with the fun stuff: Disneyland/Disney World. Here is a place where hypermediation and transparency are juxtaposed - they are able to exist as one. B& G state that hypermediacy is apparent not only in the "electric light and sound but with specific references and remediations of particular Disney films, songs, and animated characters" (p. 170). At the same time, transparency exists by giving visitors the chance to step into the films they have seen by riding rides which reenact a certain part of the movie of meeting the famous characters they see on film. B&G are careful to point out that while these experiences may not be "transparent" for most adults, they surely are for children who think the experiences and characters are authentic.
B&G refer back to the the concept of "economic repurposing" in their discussion of Disney, as well. Just like a company like Marvel might make a comic book into a movie, Disney made films and television shows into a mediated space, the amusement park. This is not in rivalry of the predecessor, but in mutual relation. As B&G assert in Networks of Remediations, "A medium in our culture can never operate in isolation, because it must enter into relationships of respect and rivalry with other media" (p. 65). In the case of economic repurposing, there is no rivalry - only respect. If the films do well, so will the amusement park. And so on.
B&G's reference to Augé's idea of nonplaces is intriguing. They mention shopping malls, city centers, airports, train stations, and Cyberspace all as nonplaces in that all of these places have a "quality of detachment." In other words, if you were to be plopped down in one of them, you would have little indication of where you were in the world. They are, in fact, detached from the world around them. B&G note that these places are ripe with hypermediacy and also only function as public places during their hours of operation.
This is where the theology of Cyberspace comes into play. I believe Cyberspace does not meet the criteria of a nonplace in that it acts as a public place at all hours of the day - it is never turned off or shut down. However, thinking of Cyberspace as a mediated space in its own - a space which a person can actually feel as if they may enter into and interact with - revolutionizes the human conception of space. This sort of theology is something which requires further examination to fully (ok, even somewhat) comprehend.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Reactions to Immediacy, Hypermediacy, and Remediation
It's funny to read a lot of this chapter because so much of it seems prehistoric. Of course, just like we mentioned in class, any book trying to deal with anything remotely digital quickly becomes at best outdated and at worst, obsolete. The actual idea of this book talking about immediacy, hypermediacy, and remediation in print form is a bit ironic. Perhaps someone has already remediated it.
On the other hand, it's interesting to look at what the book is saying and know that what its predicted has now happened, and has gone beyond what the authors could have predicted. For example, Bolter and Grusin's discussion about immediacy being achieved with the manipulation of touching and dragging with a mouse or pen-based interface now seems taken for granted with our era of touch-screen phones, computers, TV's, and all else electronic, but the idea behind what they are saying remains the same: the more something feels real and as if the person is actually within that system, the more exciting it becomes. It seems people are becoming less and less concerned with using technology for a tool and more concerned with actually becoming one with it. I have girl friends who might actually consider their phones their best friends, for goodness sake.
I can back my point up with the idea of erasing the human agent which Bolter and Grusin discuss with automacy, where transparency is achieved and the human feels as if they are not merely watching a TV show or playing a video game, but are actually within that show or game, and moreover are part of it. Being part of this imaginary world thrills, allowing people to go on adventures they never could in "real" life. But who cares if it's real if it feels real anyways? It almost seems like the advent of becoming one with technology through transparency and immediacy is replacing something archaic... something nearly forgotten....what did they call those things? Oh yes, that's right - Books.And the Imagination.
I will not deny that the immediate world we live it, which is ripe with remediation and hypermediacy and all that jazz, can be thrilling, awe-inspiring, and mystical. But I am an English major. And I think there is something to be said for the plain old piece of written literature - and for certain communication, imagination, and isolation problems that have come with the deterioration of this lost medium.
On the other hand, it's interesting to look at what the book is saying and know that what its predicted has now happened, and has gone beyond what the authors could have predicted. For example, Bolter and Grusin's discussion about immediacy being achieved with the manipulation of touching and dragging with a mouse or pen-based interface now seems taken for granted with our era of touch-screen phones, computers, TV's, and all else electronic, but the idea behind what they are saying remains the same: the more something feels real and as if the person is actually within that system, the more exciting it becomes. It seems people are becoming less and less concerned with using technology for a tool and more concerned with actually becoming one with it. I have girl friends who might actually consider their phones their best friends, for goodness sake.
I can back my point up with the idea of erasing the human agent which Bolter and Grusin discuss with automacy, where transparency is achieved and the human feels as if they are not merely watching a TV show or playing a video game, but are actually within that show or game, and moreover are part of it. Being part of this imaginary world thrills, allowing people to go on adventures they never could in "real" life. But who cares if it's real if it feels real anyways? It almost seems like the advent of becoming one with technology through transparency and immediacy is replacing something archaic... something nearly forgotten....what did they call those things? Oh yes, that's right - Books.And the Imagination.
I will not deny that the immediate world we live it, which is ripe with remediation and hypermediacy and all that jazz, can be thrilling, awe-inspiring, and mystical. But I am an English major. And I think there is something to be said for the plain old piece of written literature - and for certain communication, imagination, and isolation problems that have come with the deterioration of this lost medium.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Our Omeka as it Engages the Elements of Thematic Research Collections
Carole Palmer (2004) uses Unsworth's characteristics of the genre of thematic research collections to describe what they are in her chapter, Thematic Research Collections and lists that these collections are the following: "electronic, heterogeneous datatypes, extensive but thematically coherent, structured but open-ended, designed to support research, authored or multi-authored, interdisciplinary, and collections of digital primary resources" (p. 349). Of course, we also see her famous table entitled Features of thematic research collections (Table 24.1) on page 350 which outlines the points in her chapter discussing what constitutes a thematic research collection. It looks a little something like this:
Content Function
Basic elements
Digital Research support
Thematic
Variable characteristics
Coherent Scholarly contribution
Heterogeneous Contextual mass
Structured Interdisciplinary platform
Open-ended Activity support
So let's take a little mosey through the Saco River Estuary Omeka page and see if we have met this criteria. Is it really a thematic research collection? (It better be, after all that work!)
Let's look at the basic elements: is it digital? Yes. Is it thematic? Yes - the theme is the Saco River Estuary.
Next up: Variable characteristics. Is the collection coherent? I'd say so. Although we are bringing lots of information in from many different areas through various forms of scholarly contribution, the items all are coherent in that they deal in some way with the Saco River Estuary. As far as scholarly contribution goes, there is certainly a rich collection on our Omeka site. We have University researchers and professors and the help of Renee DesRoberts at the McArthur Public Library, just to name a few. And our class, of course! Is the collection heterogeneous? Yes. I already touched upon this. The Saco River Estuary Omeka site a large variety of mediums, including maps, videos, still images, and text - there is certainly contextual mass there. Is the collection structured? Our site is structured in many different ways which makes it easy to use as an interdisciplinary platform. First, it is set up by collection. There are fish and bird collections, which may appeal to the ecologist or biologist, map and photo collections, which may appeal to the historian or artist, and a business collection, which may appeal to the Business and Communications field. Next, our items are tagged. That way, they can be searched in an advance search to narrow results into categories. Each entry is also structured by the Dublin Core. We also have exhibits, structuring our items into heterogeneous groups which are interrelated in a specified way. Lastly, is our collection open-ended? Yes. Our collection can, and will, be added to. It is not finished with the end of this course. Instead, there is opportunity for it to grow and continue growing with contributions by other scholars.
The verdict? We have a winner! Looks like the Saco River Estuary Project can officially be considered a Thematic Research Collection, according to Carole Palmer's criteria.
Content Function
Basic elements
Digital Research support
Thematic
Variable characteristics
Coherent Scholarly contribution
Heterogeneous Contextual mass
Structured Interdisciplinary platform
Open-ended Activity support
So let's take a little mosey through the Saco River Estuary Omeka page and see if we have met this criteria. Is it really a thematic research collection? (It better be, after all that work!)
Let's look at the basic elements: is it digital? Yes. Is it thematic? Yes - the theme is the Saco River Estuary.
Next up: Variable characteristics. Is the collection coherent? I'd say so. Although we are bringing lots of information in from many different areas through various forms of scholarly contribution, the items all are coherent in that they deal in some way with the Saco River Estuary. As far as scholarly contribution goes, there is certainly a rich collection on our Omeka site. We have University researchers and professors and the help of Renee DesRoberts at the McArthur Public Library, just to name a few. And our class, of course! Is the collection heterogeneous? Yes. I already touched upon this. The Saco River Estuary Omeka site a large variety of mediums, including maps, videos, still images, and text - there is certainly contextual mass there. Is the collection structured? Our site is structured in many different ways which makes it easy to use as an interdisciplinary platform. First, it is set up by collection. There are fish and bird collections, which may appeal to the ecologist or biologist, map and photo collections, which may appeal to the historian or artist, and a business collection, which may appeal to the Business and Communications field. Next, our items are tagged. That way, they can be searched in an advance search to narrow results into categories. Each entry is also structured by the Dublin Core. We also have exhibits, structuring our items into heterogeneous groups which are interrelated in a specified way. Lastly, is our collection open-ended? Yes. Our collection can, and will, be added to. It is not finished with the end of this course. Instead, there is opportunity for it to grow and continue growing with contributions by other scholars.
The verdict? We have a winner! Looks like the Saco River Estuary Project can officially be considered a Thematic Research Collection, according to Carole Palmer's criteria.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Reflections on working with the McArthur Library
I am really enjoying the work I have been doing with the Robert H. Gay Photo Collection for the Saco River Estuary project on Omeka. I feel like this collection, the Moody Photo Collection, and the maps differ somewhat from the rest of the data that we are working with in that these topics are nearly entirely historical rather than scientific. Surely the two disciplines intersect and I expect that they will as we think more about create conscious exhibits which display the significance of both forms of data, but for the most part the process of being in a library and scanning glass plate negatives fits the bill for stereotypical "archive work" perhaps better than scanning EOL for bird descriptions.
And here is where my nerdy side appears - I think there is something almost romantic, or maybe magical, about digging through dusty, barely touched maps and glass plate negatives to unearth something which time has forgotten. I relish burying myself in the library. So while as I not-so-subtly stated on the first day of class that "digital stuff" isn't really my jam, the hanging out in the library and conducting research and delving into history of the Saco River is.
I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to work with Renee DesRoberts. She has been a wonderful resource - so very helpful and generous with her time. I plan to go back to McArthur tomorrow during class time to spend the hour and a half scanning the negatives for photos to be uploaded to the archive, and she has been open to letting me use her space to do that. I also know that she will be there to help along the way.
And here is where my nerdy side appears - I think there is something almost romantic, or maybe magical, about digging through dusty, barely touched maps and glass plate negatives to unearth something which time has forgotten. I relish burying myself in the library. So while as I not-so-subtly stated on the first day of class that "digital stuff" isn't really my jam, the hanging out in the library and conducting research and delving into history of the Saco River is.
I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to work with Renee DesRoberts. She has been a wonderful resource - so very helpful and generous with her time. I plan to go back to McArthur tomorrow during class time to spend the hour and a half scanning the negatives for photos to be uploaded to the archive, and she has been open to letting me use her space to do that. I also know that she will be there to help along the way.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Reflections on Working with Omeka
This is our second week working with Omeka, and so far I find it pretty user-friendly. I have been working with Meghan on the bird data to upload pictures, common names, and scientific names of birds who are endangered, threatened, and species of concern. EOL has been a fantastic resource. Finding quality pictures of the birds along with their descriptions is a cinch, and the fact that all of their pictures are creative commons save the headache of scouring the Internet for something we won't get sued for using.
The actual act of adding information as "items" onto Omeka is also extremely easy. The Dublin Core is extensive, but at least it leaves no room for questioning about what we should include for information about our source (though I expect some of this information will be left out, as the list is so darn long). After filling this information out - which is so handily listed on EOL - it is a breeze to upload a picture of the item to the site. Hit save and voile! The item has been added and it looks like you're a pro at this digital archive stuff.
I am looking forward to exploring more with Omeka's collections and working on creating some multi-media exhibitions (i.e. images, maps, videos, text, etc.). The site is starting to look great and I cannot wait to see how it will look when we're finished with it. I am ready to start working with the Gay photo collection to add another dimension to the archive.
The actual act of adding information as "items" onto Omeka is also extremely easy. The Dublin Core is extensive, but at least it leaves no room for questioning about what we should include for information about our source (though I expect some of this information will be left out, as the list is so darn long). After filling this information out - which is so handily listed on EOL - it is a breeze to upload a picture of the item to the site. Hit save and voile! The item has been added and it looks like you're a pro at this digital archive stuff.
I am looking forward to exploring more with Omeka's collections and working on creating some multi-media exhibitions (i.e. images, maps, videos, text, etc.). The site is starting to look great and I cannot wait to see how it will look when we're finished with it. I am ready to start working with the Gay photo collection to add another dimension to the archive.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Thoughts on the Presidential Visits to Charlotte Showcase Collection (Omeka)
I spent my time on Omeka with the Presidential Visits to Charlotte Showcase Collection. Here's the link: http://thepresidentcomestotown.omeka.net/collections . The focus of this collection is pretty self-explanatory - it looks at Presidents of the United States who, across history, have visited Charlotte, North Carolina. It was done as a research project by a graduate assistant at the University of North Carolina in 2010. Its disclaimer is that the exhibit does not touch upon all Presidential visits to the city, but exists to highlight some important pieces of the city's history.
The collection is broken down into four sub-collections: Presidential Visual Aids, which include photos, letters, diaries, and newspaper clippings, the President Taft Collection, the President F. D. Roosevelt Collection, and the President Eisenhower Collection. These last three collections all contain resources which circled around their visits to the city, including program covers, welcome letters, and photographs. All of these collections are collected by the same, one woman, and are not incredibly comprehensive. Although they capture the excitement of the city in response to the presidential visits, I feel like there are so many materials, and annotations, that are lacking. There are also four exhibits featured. They seem to include the same material as the collections, but just present them in different ways. I like this presentation better because it walks the viewer through the event, from the arrival of the President to his speech and the celebrations that entailed.
Materials on the site can be browsed by tag. There is also a search bar which allows for an advanced search. The collection is so focused, however, that I think it would be possible to search the entire site by viewing every page and material in under an hour. Although it is an interesting site, I think it could be expanded upon immensely, and appeal to history, art, and literature scholars. As of now, there is not much scholarly collaboration happening in this showcase collection. It has potential to grow, but needs huge amounts of annotation to offer background knowledge and more materials to enable comparison and evaluation before it could be used to create a research project.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Computing for Archaeologists - Revised
Eiteljorg's chapter, Computing for Archaeologists, provides readers with an outline of the history of digital computing and its uses in archaeology and an overview of the tools which archaeologists use to digitize and analyze their materials. He also indicates what the job of the archaeologist is, and then explains how digital computing allows archaeologists to succeed at this job. Finally, Eiteljorg addresses the limitations and downfalls of humanities computing in archaeology. This chapter gives readers a realistic look at the state of digital computing within the archaeology discipline.
Eiteljorg's primary focus in this chapter lies in the job of the archaeologist and the evolution in digital computing which has taken place since the induction of computers into the scholarly realm in the 1950's until now which has revolutionized the way archaeologists do their job. And what is that job, you ask? While there are the obvious components of what an archaeologist does - finding material remains and unearthing them so they may be analyzed and interpreted - Eiteljorg argues that the biggest responsibility of archaeologists is record-keeping (20). Record-keeping for archaeologists occurs in two forms; they must keep records of both the artifact and of its context within the discipline (Eiteljorg 21). With the increasing use of computers from the '50's on, archaeologists discovered that they could utilize database software to record findings and process statistics. As computers evolved to be more accessible, flexible, efficient, and store more materials, so did the records of archaeologists (Eiteljorg 21-22).
If you take a moment peek under the surface of archaeological record-keeping, you will find many of Unsworth's scholarly primitives at work. The first is discovery. Before record-keeping can occur, archaeologists must actually physically discover the artifact. After the artifact has been unearthed, archaeologists continue the action of discovery by figuring out its archaeological context. What is important about it? What does this artifact in this place mean for such and such civilization? These are the types of questions which archaeologists could follow to make new discoveries in their field. Record-keeping also encourages comparison. By compiling records into a widely-accessible database, scholars suddenly are able to compare the artifacts and discoveries of different archaeologists working on projects around the world, and to possibly compare findings with their own, as well. A third primitive which is present with record-keeping is sampling. By being able to search a particular tag within a database of records, archaeologists are able to sample artifacts and intellectual findings by categories which pertain to their interests. In short, record-keeping through digital computing by archaeologists is ripe with the scholarly primitives which Unsworth highlights (Unsworth 1).
So Eiteljorg emphasizes that computers and their digital programs are used by archaeologists as a tool for record-keeping. When assessing which of Svensson's five modes would relate most accurately to digital computing for archaeologists, then, the obvious answer is the mode of tool. Archaeologists do not seem to use technology as the object of study itself or as a lab where technology is used to explore as they do to utilize it as an efficient tool for keeping information (Svensson 21). Eiteljorg highlights some of the most commonly used tools among archaeologists. These include databases, in which archaeologists' original interest "stemmed from hope that data storehouses could be used retrieve and analyze information from related excavations, thus permitting broader syntheses" (Eiteljorg 22). Other tools include GIS (Geographic Information System), which is used for graphical mapping, and CAD (Computer-Assisted Design) software, which can be used for record-keeping drawings or reconstruction of archaeological dig sites. While most archaeologists use CAD for record-keeping, using it for reconstruction could fall under Svensson's mode of lab, as they are using technology as a mode of exploration (Svensson 32). Eiteljorg also briefly cites commercial software, Internet communication, coloration of photos, and 3-D modeling of artifacts as other useful tools for archaeologists (23-25).
According to Eiteljorg, the ability to manage more data more efficiently is the most important benefit computers have brought to the discipline of archaeology (25). Despite the incredible gains in data-keeping which technology has enabled, however, it still has its downfalls and limitations. One issue with the increasing use of technology by archaeologists is that it can potentially remove them from actual contact with artifacts. This puts them at risk at losing familiarity with the objects. Use of digital computing is also limited within the discipline to the scholars' knowledge and skills with computers and an absence of formal training with the field of archaeology. Eiteljorg adds that it is still not a universally-held responsibility among archaeologists to effectively keep records and electronic publication has still not reached the level of validity and permanence as paper-based records (28). While this statement seems like a discrepancy from his chapter-long claim that record-keeping is the number one responsibility among archaeologists, perhaps a lack of a universal standard is the issue among these archaeologists. Whatever the cause, Eiteljorg concludes that the transformation from print recording to digital recording is still a work in progress within archaeology (28).
Eiteljorg's primary focus in this chapter lies in the job of the archaeologist and the evolution in digital computing which has taken place since the induction of computers into the scholarly realm in the 1950's until now which has revolutionized the way archaeologists do their job. And what is that job, you ask? While there are the obvious components of what an archaeologist does - finding material remains and unearthing them so they may be analyzed and interpreted - Eiteljorg argues that the biggest responsibility of archaeologists is record-keeping (20). Record-keeping for archaeologists occurs in two forms; they must keep records of both the artifact and of its context within the discipline (Eiteljorg 21). With the increasing use of computers from the '50's on, archaeologists discovered that they could utilize database software to record findings and process statistics. As computers evolved to be more accessible, flexible, efficient, and store more materials, so did the records of archaeologists (Eiteljorg 21-22).
If you take a moment peek under the surface of archaeological record-keeping, you will find many of Unsworth's scholarly primitives at work. The first is discovery. Before record-keeping can occur, archaeologists must actually physically discover the artifact. After the artifact has been unearthed, archaeologists continue the action of discovery by figuring out its archaeological context. What is important about it? What does this artifact in this place mean for such and such civilization? These are the types of questions which archaeologists could follow to make new discoveries in their field. Record-keeping also encourages comparison. By compiling records into a widely-accessible database, scholars suddenly are able to compare the artifacts and discoveries of different archaeologists working on projects around the world, and to possibly compare findings with their own, as well. A third primitive which is present with record-keeping is sampling. By being able to search a particular tag within a database of records, archaeologists are able to sample artifacts and intellectual findings by categories which pertain to their interests. In short, record-keeping through digital computing by archaeologists is ripe with the scholarly primitives which Unsworth highlights (Unsworth 1).
So Eiteljorg emphasizes that computers and their digital programs are used by archaeologists as a tool for record-keeping. When assessing which of Svensson's five modes would relate most accurately to digital computing for archaeologists, then, the obvious answer is the mode of tool. Archaeologists do not seem to use technology as the object of study itself or as a lab where technology is used to explore as they do to utilize it as an efficient tool for keeping information (Svensson 21). Eiteljorg highlights some of the most commonly used tools among archaeologists. These include databases, in which archaeologists' original interest "stemmed from hope that data storehouses could be used retrieve and analyze information from related excavations, thus permitting broader syntheses" (Eiteljorg 22). Other tools include GIS (Geographic Information System), which is used for graphical mapping, and CAD (Computer-Assisted Design) software, which can be used for record-keeping drawings or reconstruction of archaeological dig sites. While most archaeologists use CAD for record-keeping, using it for reconstruction could fall under Svensson's mode of lab, as they are using technology as a mode of exploration (Svensson 32). Eiteljorg also briefly cites commercial software, Internet communication, coloration of photos, and 3-D modeling of artifacts as other useful tools for archaeologists (23-25).
According to Eiteljorg, the ability to manage more data more efficiently is the most important benefit computers have brought to the discipline of archaeology (25). Despite the incredible gains in data-keeping which technology has enabled, however, it still has its downfalls and limitations. One issue with the increasing use of technology by archaeologists is that it can potentially remove them from actual contact with artifacts. This puts them at risk at losing familiarity with the objects. Use of digital computing is also limited within the discipline to the scholars' knowledge and skills with computers and an absence of formal training with the field of archaeology. Eiteljorg adds that it is still not a universally-held responsibility among archaeologists to effectively keep records and electronic publication has still not reached the level of validity and permanence as paper-based records (28). While this statement seems like a discrepancy from his chapter-long claim that record-keeping is the number one responsibility among archaeologists, perhaps a lack of a universal standard is the issue among these archaeologists. Whatever the cause, Eiteljorg concludes that the transformation from print recording to digital recording is still a work in progress within archaeology (28).
Works Cited
Eiteljorg, Harrison II. "Computing for Archaeologists." A Companion to Digital Humanities. Ed. Susan Schreibman, Ray Siemens, and John Unsworth. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. 20-30. Print.
Svensson, Patrik. "The Landscape of Digital Humanities." Digital Humanities Quarterly 4:1 (2010): 1-42. Online.
Unsworth, John. "Scholarly Primitives: What Methods do Humanities Researchers Have in Common, and How Might Our Tools Reflect This?" King's College. London, England. 13 May 2000. Symposium.
Sunday, October 13, 2013
When 0100.tif went down
Well folks, 0100.tif - that insane collaboration of illegible chicken scratch confusion - has been tackled, wrestled with, and transcribed. I cannot say that it is perfect, or that it would actually appear as anything useful when it hits a webpage, but I still did something that I never thought I would be able to do before (or let's face it, want to do). I don't think that I will quit my second graders and enter into a full time text encoding career. I probably won't transcribe anything, or ever want to read the Economy chapter, again. But I can honestly say that I think there is value in all that we did. Even in reading Walden <---- don't quote me on that! I am happy knowing that I learned something completely, entirely, wholly, and incredibly new with TEI in the last couple of weeks - for that, I am grateful.
Monday, October 7, 2013
Reflections on Text Encoding - A follow-up on former frustration
Well, as it turns out, I was correct in believing that my manuscript leaf was not from the Reading chapter of Walden. It is from the Economy chapter. Figuring this tiny detail out helped me move forward with my text encoding immensely in class today. I was able to find the Economy chapter online and search words which I had found within my manuscript leaf and believed to be correct to find exactly where my text is placed in the book. I laughed out loud at myself when I compared what I thought some of the words were to what they actually are. There were one or two instances, however, where it was clear that Thoreau's original manuscript did not match up with the print I had found online, but which I could not completely read, either. Perhaps this is the reason why the published text is altered somewhat - maybe nobody knew what on earth Thoreau was writing.
Further progress came with some of the solutions to my questions during the workshop. These included how to deal with the page numbers in the margins, what to do with brackets, boxes, and squiggles, and how to decipher where a zone begins and ends. I feel much more confident about my transcription, but I expect it to still be rife with mistakes. It would be naive to assume that any stab at TEI could be perfect on the first try. But I feel good knowing I can do something that I never thought I could/would ever do, and which confuses lots of people (even if I am among those poor souls).
My feelings about TEI today remain consistent with those of last night. It's an insta-headache. But I guess it's kinda cool.
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Reflections of Text Encoding
Is 'Holy Crap!?!?!!? WTH??!!?!' appropriate language for a blog post regarding TEI and Thoreau's ancient, extremely valuable (I guess that's relative) manuscript leaves of Walden? I don't know or care - I think it's the only language to reflect what I just experienced.
Perhaps I'm being slightly melodramatic. I "completed" leaf 0110.tif of the Walden manuscript. There were sections that were easier than others, and I feel as though I have a general idea of what is going on with zones, lines, etc. However, actually reading Thoreau's handwriting is an enormous challenge. That is where my biggest struggle is. Much of it is illegible, and I am still unable to find the spot in the book that my leaf is from, making it nearly impossible to figure out what he wrote. I do not recognize what I have read so far as an excerpt from the Reading chapter, which admittedly makes me a little nervous.
I also have some questions to bring to the class about what to do when there are notes written in the margin, how to indicate that something is underlined, and where zones should start if a strikethrough begins in the middle of a paragraph. These questions are noted in my work in red, along with my uncertainties about words. Below is what I have figured out so far:
Perhaps I'm being slightly melodramatic. I "completed" leaf 0110.tif of the Walden manuscript. There were sections that were easier than others, and I feel as though I have a general idea of what is going on with zones, lines, etc. However, actually reading Thoreau's handwriting is an enormous challenge. That is where my biggest struggle is. Much of it is illegible, and I am still unable to find the spot in the book that my leaf is from, making it nearly impossible to figure out what he wrote. I do not recognize what I have read so far as an excerpt from the Reading chapter, which admittedly makes me a little nervous.
I also have some questions to bring to the class about what to do when there are notes written in the margin, how to indicate that something is underlined, and where zones should start if a strikethrough begins in the middle of a paragraph. These questions are noted in my work in red, along with my uncertainties about words. Below is what I have figured out so far:
<sourceDoc>
<surface
xml:id=”s_____”
n=”_________” ulx=
“0” uly= “0” lrx= “2856”
lry= “3424”>
<graphic
url= “0110.tif”/>
<zone
ulx= “176” uly= “184” lrx= “1952” lry= “996”>
<line>Managed not advertised?,
who, </line>
Note in margin – “p.62” … what do I
do?
<line>Too,
was asunder that the floor, </line>
<line>Does
_____ way under the, </line>
<line>Visitor
while he is admiring,</line>
<line>The
_____ when the ____ when the mantel,</line>
<line>_____
him through into? the _____, </line>
<line>_____
_____ and homer, through, </line>
<line>Earth’s,
foundation! ____ </line>
</zone>
<zone
rendition= “strikethrough” ulx= “1960” uly= “912” lrx= “1220” lry= “1372”>
<line>[Often
when, </line>
<line>We
____ ____ for the beautiful, </line>
<line>______
cultivated out of doors, </line>
<line>Where
there is ‘no house – and the,</line>
<line>House
- ______]’. </line>
</zone>
<zone
ulx= “1432” uly= “1356” lrx= “2680” lry= “2368”>
<line>Before
we can adorn, </line>
<line>Our
house with beautiful objects – the, </line> Note in margin- p.
63
<line>Walls
must be straight – and our lives, </line>
<line>Must
be straight, our? beautiful house-,
</line>
<line>____
and beautiful living be laid, </line>
<line>For
a foundation. Now _____, </line>
<line>Call
tools for the beautiful _____, </line>
<line>Cultivated
out of doors, where there, </line>
<line>Is
no house, and no house _____. </line> note that
text “and no house____” is underlined
</zone>
<zone
rendition= “strikethrough” ulx= “304” uly= “2476” lrx= “2626” lry= “3388”>
<line>Though
we are walls ______-, </line>
<line>-Ted
____ that we might ____ live in, </line>
<line>A
cave or a wigwam <zone rendition= “strikethrough”> to-day </zone> craves?, </line>
<line>Skins
to-day – it is continents?, </line>
<line>Better
to accept the _______, </line>
<line>Though
so dearly bought, which the, </line>
<line>Invention
and industry of mankind, </line>
<line>Often. ___ In? much a neighbor - </line>
</zone>
To put it simply, this TEI stuff is TOUGH! My brain hurts.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Paul Schacht Video Conference - Digital Thoreau
Our video conference with Paul Schacht on Monday morning about his involvement in the Digital Thoreau project and the TEI was eye-opening in that it made apparent just how large, complex, and multi-dimensional the project, and the movement, actually is.
The first item I would like to make note of from the conference is the sheer number of layers of revisions that have been produced of Thoreau's Walden. It is hard to believe that what scholars believe to be 7 distinct drafts of Thoreau's original have evolved into appearing as over 20 different reproductions. Of course, that's what happens when multiple people with different viewpoints and backgrounds come together to analyze and transcribe the same exact work - there are discrepancies. It is exciting to think that we as a class are going to play a hand in this transcription and growth of the project, and our work could actually help further Digital Thoreau. It feels like we are some sort of team of diplomatic transcribers being called in to de-fuzz the project a bit. Of course, that is probably tooting our horn and giving us way more credit than deserved, but knowing that our work could have an actual impact on the project inclines me to put my best effort toward it.
The second item I would like to note is the social component of the Digital Thoreau project. It was intriguing to hear Schacht talk about the social buzz they are trying to create around Walden by digitizing it, then allowing people to comment on it (as if it was a Facebook page, minus the trash, Schacht said). I found his answer to James' question about who would modify the comments on the page to be interesting and agreeable. His answer was that because the project targets a much narrower audience than most social media sites, it will probably self-regulate. Those people visiting the site and leaving comments will most likely be involved and knowledgeable about Thoreau, and will not be just any crazy person who makes obscene comments on YouTube or Twitter. However, it's important to remember (and Schacht did note this, too), that even really smart people can be really big nitwits. It will be compelling to see how much the social factor takes off, and if all the concerns of anti-collaborative humanists - those afraid of people with little knowledge and/or malicious intentions derailing digital projects - have been worth all that huffing and hawing.
The first item I would like to make note of from the conference is the sheer number of layers of revisions that have been produced of Thoreau's Walden. It is hard to believe that what scholars believe to be 7 distinct drafts of Thoreau's original have evolved into appearing as over 20 different reproductions. Of course, that's what happens when multiple people with different viewpoints and backgrounds come together to analyze and transcribe the same exact work - there are discrepancies. It is exciting to think that we as a class are going to play a hand in this transcription and growth of the project, and our work could actually help further Digital Thoreau. It feels like we are some sort of team of diplomatic transcribers being called in to de-fuzz the project a bit. Of course, that is probably tooting our horn and giving us way more credit than deserved, but knowing that our work could have an actual impact on the project inclines me to put my best effort toward it.
The second item I would like to note is the social component of the Digital Thoreau project. It was intriguing to hear Schacht talk about the social buzz they are trying to create around Walden by digitizing it, then allowing people to comment on it (as if it was a Facebook page, minus the trash, Schacht said). I found his answer to James' question about who would modify the comments on the page to be interesting and agreeable. His answer was that because the project targets a much narrower audience than most social media sites, it will probably self-regulate. Those people visiting the site and leaving comments will most likely be involved and knowledgeable about Thoreau, and will not be just any crazy person who makes obscene comments on YouTube or Twitter. However, it's important to remember (and Schacht did note this, too), that even really smart people can be really big nitwits. It will be compelling to see how much the social factor takes off, and if all the concerns of anti-collaborative humanists - those afraid of people with little knowledge and/or malicious intentions derailing digital projects - have been worth all that huffing and hawing.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
The TEI and the Study of Literature - Cummings
There are two main ideas which captured me from Cummings' article, The Text Encoding Initiative and the Study of Literature. The first was that TEI and many of its controversies/questions seem to revolve around it being a scholarly primitive and just how primitive is should be. I found it interesting that originally TEI was an initiative designed for the humanities, but as the years have progressed other disciplines have adopted it. Cummings talks about the ways in which its original purpose - he uses the example of the TEI creating recommendations for the creation of the speech corpa - was taken by other disciplines and morphed so that it could be used for their purposes. How much can a primitive tool be changed before it can no longer be used on a general basis because it is too specialized, and then therefore is no longer a primitive?
The second, and far more interesting, tidbit that caught my attention was how much TEI has become intertwined with literary criticism. I took the literary criticism class last fall at UNE for my English major and quickly formed the opinion that wherever literature or even the faintest hint of prose may be found, literary criticism can be found lurking not far behind. With TEI, it appears as though one of the huge topics of debate is the controversy over what makes up a text. The TEI is based on the principle that literature is simply a text which is the combination of the same characters being used over and over again, simply in new ways. To some literary critics, that is a shock-and-awe sin; to say a text is just a novel combination of characters eliminates the notion that Literature (with a capital L, mind you) is a specific category set aside for only a limited number of texts which mean some set of enlightened-thinking, human-condition encompassing standards.
TEI is confusing. Cummings' article was no cake walk. However, I was interested to make connections with his article and others that we have discussed in class so far, and with information I learned in previous classes. I do look forward to seeing how the TEI will take form in our Walden project.
The second, and far more interesting, tidbit that caught my attention was how much TEI has become intertwined with literary criticism. I took the literary criticism class last fall at UNE for my English major and quickly formed the opinion that wherever literature or even the faintest hint of prose may be found, literary criticism can be found lurking not far behind. With TEI, it appears as though one of the huge topics of debate is the controversy over what makes up a text. The TEI is based on the principle that literature is simply a text which is the combination of the same characters being used over and over again, simply in new ways. To some literary critics, that is a shock-and-awe sin; to say a text is just a novel combination of characters eliminates the notion that Literature (with a capital L, mind you) is a specific category set aside for only a limited number of texts which mean some set of enlightened-thinking, human-condition encompassing standards.
TEI is confusing. Cummings' article was no cake walk. However, I was interested to make connections with his article and others that we have discussed in class so far, and with information I learned in previous classes. I do look forward to seeing how the TEI will take form in our Walden project.
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Computing for Archaeologists - Eiteljorg
Outline for Computing for Archaeologists
I History of Archaeologists and Computing
I History of Archaeologists and Computing
- Job
- Find material remains - DISCOVERY
- Unearth them in away that maximizes the info they can convey
- Interpret the evidence
- *Record-keeping - "It can be argued that record-keeping is the real occupation of archaeologists" (p.20).
- Record-Keeping as Key
- Must keep records of both archaeological context AND the artifacts
- Archaeologist saw responsibility for record-keeping and first started using computers in '50's.
- Computers stilled viewed as "arcane and foreign" (p. 21)
- Cost and access limits made use of computers very difficult and date stored nearly impossible to retrieve
- Used by archaeologists mainly for statistical processing - COMPARING
- By 60's databanks were being used (archaeologists were increasing aware of their vast storage power)
- By 70's new database software made more efficient record-keeping
- Necessary due to vast amount of materials collected
- Saw that "more careful and conscientious attention to small finds and fragmentary evidence could only become common with the advent of better recording techniques" (p. 21).
- Just in time came the arrival of micro-computers which made retrieval of this data efficient, flexible, and possible for scholars
- *Talks about archaeologists' issue with not being willing to choose what info is and isn't useful, and the necessity for SAMPLING
II Tools as a Mode (Svensson)
- Databases
- "Original interest stemmed from hope that data storehouses could be used to retrieve and analyze info from related excavations, thus permitting broader syntheses" (p. 22) - COMPARING
- Long-term dataset preservation for future access is another goal and self-realized responsibility of archaeologists
- *Because neither recovered artifacts and the data about them is complete without the other
- GIS Programs (Geographic Information System)
- GIS as a TOOL but also a PRIMITIVE
- ** The usefulness of GIS is that it can be created for one discipline and used for another
- Used for graphical mapping
- CAD (Computer-assisted design) software
- Used for record-keeping drawings OR reconstruction
- Archaeologists tend to use for record-keeping
- Other useful tools
- Commercial software allows for broader access to files, thus encourages collaboration
- Internet communication (i.e. email and websites) are an important facet of collaboration for researchers living on separate continents
- Coloration of photos - too expensive in print journals but possible when digitized
- 3-D modeling of artifacts
- Conclusion for TOOLS: a.) the ability to manage more date more efficiently is the most important benefit computers have brought to archaeology b.) Also provides many ways to retrieve info, analyze, ask questions of data, and to understand and COMPARE data
III Cons and Limitations of Humanities Computing in Archaeology
- Archaeologists spend more time with computers than the actual artifacts - run risk of losing familiarity with them
- Use of computers is limited to scholars' knowledge of them
- Absence of formal training in computing
IV State of Computing in Archaeology
- Not a universally understood responsibility on the part of archaeologists to prepare digital materials for online repositories for future generations
- Electronic publication still has not achieved the validity and permanence of print publication
** Conclusion: "The transformation for paper-based to digital recording is still incomplete" (Eiteljorg).
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Unsworth and Svensson - Making Sense of Scholarly Primitives and DH Landscapes
It is not easy to break down all of what I have just read into a tiny itty bitty blog post, because that would mean that I not only completely understand scholarly primitives and the landscape of the DH, but can state these understandings as concise facts. And because not even Svensson or Unsworth, scholars in the field of DH, can concisely explain the broad world of digital humanities and all it entails, I won't pretend that I can. However, I will organize some of my thoughts here.
Here are some of the take-aways I got from Unsworth's "Scholarly Primitives" article:
a.) Scholarly primitives are "activities basic to scholarship across eras and across media" (Unsworth, p. 1). He classified scholarly primitives as actions, changing my initial understanding that scholarly primitives are understandings which scholars across all fields hold to be true. Some of the actions he characterized as scholarly primitives were discovering, annotating, comparing, referring, sampling, illustrating, and representing.
b.) Digital tools that function on the foundation of scholarly primitives (i.e. Babble using the scholarly primitive of comparison) can not be customized to work better for a specific project. If they are, they are no longer functional primitives which can be used across a broad spectrum of fields and/or medias.
c.) Unsworth concluded his article with a side-by-side view of a discussion of the Human Genome Project on one side, and a discussion of the Humanities Genres Project on the other, with 'humanist' substituted for 'biologist' and 'library' for 'laboratory.' He uses this as an example of representation and deformation, two other scholarly primitives he adds to his list. It is interesting that minus the slight change in the words he substitutes, the text remains the same and works for both discussions, although they are of completely different subjects. I think that this further verifies his point that a scholarly primitive must be something which is blind to a field or study and can be used in all forms of scholarship.
"The Landscape of Digital Humanities" I found, as I suspect many of us did, to be much weightier, with a whole lot of definitions and theories and opinions to wade through. I came to understand that:
a.) DH has not yet been completely defined as a field or rather just "an array of convergent practices" (Svensson, p. 5).
b.) One of the reasons DH is so important is that it has redefined scholarly inquiry itself - it has created knew ways to communicate and evaluate and organize scholarly thought and humanities work (Svensson, p.6).
c.) Out of DH has arisen critical cyberculture studies. It seems that with the creation of anything in academia comes a critical study of it, in turn creating a NEW field of thought.
Much that Svensson discussed rang true with what we have already talked about in our class discussions, including how creating a DH center proves legitimacy of the study, the various tools available for use in the DH, and some of the pros and cons and areas of contention among scholars that come with opening academia up to the general public.
This was a lot of information for my brain to digest, and I predict that it will be having cramps periodically throughout the semester.
Here are some of the take-aways I got from Unsworth's "Scholarly Primitives" article:
a.) Scholarly primitives are "activities basic to scholarship across eras and across media" (Unsworth, p. 1). He classified scholarly primitives as actions, changing my initial understanding that scholarly primitives are understandings which scholars across all fields hold to be true. Some of the actions he characterized as scholarly primitives were discovering, annotating, comparing, referring, sampling, illustrating, and representing.
b.) Digital tools that function on the foundation of scholarly primitives (i.e. Babble using the scholarly primitive of comparison) can not be customized to work better for a specific project. If they are, they are no longer functional primitives which can be used across a broad spectrum of fields and/or medias.
c.) Unsworth concluded his article with a side-by-side view of a discussion of the Human Genome Project on one side, and a discussion of the Humanities Genres Project on the other, with 'humanist' substituted for 'biologist' and 'library' for 'laboratory.' He uses this as an example of representation and deformation, two other scholarly primitives he adds to his list. It is interesting that minus the slight change in the words he substitutes, the text remains the same and works for both discussions, although they are of completely different subjects. I think that this further verifies his point that a scholarly primitive must be something which is blind to a field or study and can be used in all forms of scholarship.
"The Landscape of Digital Humanities" I found, as I suspect many of us did, to be much weightier, with a whole lot of definitions and theories and opinions to wade through. I came to understand that:
a.) DH has not yet been completely defined as a field or rather just "an array of convergent practices" (Svensson, p. 5).
b.) One of the reasons DH is so important is that it has redefined scholarly inquiry itself - it has created knew ways to communicate and evaluate and organize scholarly thought and humanities work (Svensson, p.6).
c.) Out of DH has arisen critical cyberculture studies. It seems that with the creation of anything in academia comes a critical study of it, in turn creating a NEW field of thought.
Much that Svensson discussed rang true with what we have already talked about in our class discussions, including how creating a DH center proves legitimacy of the study, the various tools available for use in the DH, and some of the pros and cons and areas of contention among scholars that come with opening academia up to the general public.
This was a lot of information for my brain to digest, and I predict that it will be having cramps periodically throughout the semester.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
What is this thing we call digital humanities?
The question of the evening is this: what is this thing we call "digital humanities?" We know the definition of "digital," and have long debated the definition of "humanities" in English classes (and may or may not have a good grasp on that one still), but when the words are put together, something new is created. And this something new is, at least to me, slightly puzzling. But, from the knowledge I have gained from reading the three NY Times articles by Patricia Cohen and from our class discussion on August 28, I have formulated my own definition of the "digital humanities." Digital humanities are (go ahead, you can quote me on this): the acceleration of the study of the humanities (i.e. literature, history) with the aid of new digital technologies.
The acceleration of the study of the humanities through these new digitized methods does not occur in just one way, so it can not be pinned down as one, single practice. Instead, as Cohen mentions in her articles, it can occur through the use of statistics, crowd-sourcing, and digital maps to recreate, restudy, and realize different factions of the humanities. Cohen references the Bentham Project as one such example of recreating, restudying, and realizing literature through crowd-sourcing, where it is an open offer to the public to transcribe Bentham's unpublished manuscripts. By sharing these manuscripts digitally, University College London (which has spearheaded this project) creates an opportunity for the public to read and work with literature which would not otherwise be available to them and accelerates the process of transcription, which will in turn help scholars to study and discover ideas within the manuscripts much sooner than would have been otherwise possible.
The idea behind the Bentham Project is the same which forms the backbone of our project with digital humanities, where we will be poring over pages of Thoreau's manuscripts of Walden. This example of crowd-sourcing is just one of many ways digital humanities is allowing the traditional method of studying the humanities meet technology, and therefore be quickened, expanded, and evolved.
The acceleration of the study of the humanities through these new digitized methods does not occur in just one way, so it can not be pinned down as one, single practice. Instead, as Cohen mentions in her articles, it can occur through the use of statistics, crowd-sourcing, and digital maps to recreate, restudy, and realize different factions of the humanities. Cohen references the Bentham Project as one such example of recreating, restudying, and realizing literature through crowd-sourcing, where it is an open offer to the public to transcribe Bentham's unpublished manuscripts. By sharing these manuscripts digitally, University College London (which has spearheaded this project) creates an opportunity for the public to read and work with literature which would not otherwise be available to them and accelerates the process of transcription, which will in turn help scholars to study and discover ideas within the manuscripts much sooner than would have been otherwise possible.
The idea behind the Bentham Project is the same which forms the backbone of our project with digital humanities, where we will be poring over pages of Thoreau's manuscripts of Walden. This example of crowd-sourcing is just one of many ways digital humanities is allowing the traditional method of studying the humanities meet technology, and therefore be quickened, expanded, and evolved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)