OSCE Programme: Difference between revisions

From The Digital Classicist Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
No edit summary
Line 13: Line 13:
* 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.
* 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 ([[Positioning paper | OSCE Roueche Paper]])
* presenter: Charlotte Roueché ([[positioning paper | OSCE Roueche Paper]])


* responder: Stephen Oakley
* responder: Stephen Oakley
Line 21: Line 21:
* 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.
* 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 ([[Positioning paper | OSCE Bodard Paper]])
* presenter: Gabriel Bodard ([[positioning paper | OSCE Bodard Paper]])


* responder: Notis Toufexis ([[Response | OSCE Toufexis Response]])
* responder: Notis Toufexis ([[response | OSCE Toufexis Response]])


== 11.00 Coffee ==
== 11.00 Coffee ==
Line 32: Line 32:
* 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 ([positioning paper>paperEscience])
* presenter: Stuart Dunn ([positioning paper | OSCE Dunn Paper])


* responder: Nathan Lea
* responder: Nathan Lea
Line 39: Line 39:
* 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 ([positioning paper>paperScale])
* presenter: Gregory Crane ([positioning paper | OSCE Crane Paper])


* responder: Melissa Terras
* responder: Melissa Terras
Line 47: Line 47:
* 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 ([positioning paper>paperColl])
* presenter: Ross Scaife ([positioning paper | OSCE Scaife Paper])


* responder: Simon Mahony
* responder: Simon Mahony
Line 59: Line 59:
* 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 ([positioning paper>paperLicense])
* presenter: Sayeed Choudhury ([positioning paper | OSCE Choudhury Paper])


* responder: Brian Fuchs ([response | OSCE Fuchs Response])
* responder: Brian Fuchs ([response | OSCE Fuchs Response])
Line 66: Line 66:
* 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 ([positioning paper>paperReg])
* presenter: Neel Smith ([positioning paper | OSCE Smith Paper])


* responder: Juan Garcés ([response>paperRegresponse])
* responder: Juan Garcés ([response | 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 ([positioning paper>paperAuth])
* presenter: Daniel Deckers / Lutz Koch ([positioning paper | OSCE Deckers Paper])


* responder: Dolores Iorizzo
* responder: Dolores Iorizzo
Line 93: Line 93:
* chair: Gregory Crane
* chair: Gregory Crane


== 17.30 Ends
== 17.30 Ends ==


[[Category:OSCE]]
[[Category:OSCE]]

Revision as of 13:17, 6 November 2006

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.
  • 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.

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 ([positioning paper | 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 ([positioning paper | 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 ([positioning paper | 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 ([positioning paper | OSCE Choudhury Paper])
  • responder: Brian Fuchs ([response | 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 ([positioning paper | OSCE Smith Paper])
  • responder: Juan Garcés ([response | 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 ([positioning paper | 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

17.30 Ends

Retrieved from ‘https://wiki.digitalclassicist.org/index.php?title=OSCE_Programme&oldid=1668’