Contents of this Page:
Congratulations and Thanks |
|
Strategizing the Future of RoSE:(For background, see resullts of the charrette breakout sessions and Roundup Session. Also see suggestions that have come in since the charrette.) |
|
RoSE target audience ("who is RoSE for?") | Tier 1:
Possible Development Priorities:
|
Tier 2:
Possible Development Priorities: (in addition to above under Tier 1)
|
|
Possible RoSE Plan |
Staged development:
"Chunking" of Development Priorities According to Grant Possibilities:
|
Achievable RoSE development goals in spring 2010 (with remaining funding) | ? |
Collaborative or individual research publications we can generate from RoSE |
|
Technical or Data Issues Bearing on Future of RoSE: (in progress) |
|
Narrativity |
|
|
|
|
|
Suggestions relevant to meeting(also see results of the charrette breakout sessions and roundup session) (Click column headers to sort)
|
Suggested by: | Date: | Suggestion: |
Krapp, Peter (& Catherine Liu) | 02/27/2010 | Dear Alan, Thanks for having Catherine and me up to the RoSE charrette. It was great to join in the conversations about where this can take people's research, and to meet old and new friends. - Catherine just now on the train pointed out that instead of printing a program book, one could have entered each participant into RoSE, with cross-references (contacts such as collaborations, mutual or shared citations, affiliations) to see how it might look for all those in the room. To riff on that, we might have taken half an hour to refine such connections, e.g. between former colleagues at another institution outside UC, or people who wrote on closely related topics, or else assigned each person a historical avatar, as it were, to animate in the system. - Thanks for the hospitality, great food and conversations! |
Bulger, Monica | 02/27/2010 | See Monica's blog post on RoSE and "Affinity Browsing" |
Snow, Jeremy |
02/27/2010 |
Alan, |
Kim, David | 03/15/2010 | I think there's a lot of potential for developing an "annotation" tool for RoSE, through which (in response to some participants' concern about "reducing" interpretation to "relationship types," regardless of how granular those types may be) teachers, as one possible end-user cateogory, can explain how and why these docs and people are related. As you know already, much of this function is identified as "exhibit building" in sites that primarily use visual materials, with which scholars can "curate" an exhibit with detailed comments and external links. I see a similar potential for RoSE, if RoSE were to focus more on becoming a digital humanities tool. Another practical idea that we talked about briefly in the past is the functionality to move around the "nodes" in our visualization. Some of RA's talked about how it was difficult to visually follow relationships, because as data accumulates, the visualization becomes too dispersed. For my presentation at the charette, for example, it was difficult to get a good screen capture to document the end result because the nodes were too spread out. |
Action Items Resulting from Meeting |
|
Immediate Tasks: |
|
Tasks in Spring Quarter: |
|
|
|