Check out Adobe’s cool new cloud computing word processor called Buzzword (https://buzzword.acrobat.com/)–very slick!!

Investigating how the latest features in Camtasia & Snag It can be used to create killer research apps and tutorials for scholars!

An innovative, Web-based tool called Inventoriana is enabling scholars to collaborate on indexing and annotating digital library materials, such as liturgical manuscripts, with exciting results. Harvard medievalists have embraced the software, and it was recently used in a seminar on Ambrosian chant taught by Professor Tom Kelly.

Created by Drew Massey, a Harvard graduate student in musicology, Inventoriana allows researchers to:

• View “public” manuscripts in the Inventoriana database.
• Create private “buckets” of digitized materials for personal or group collaboration.
• Add tags to precise locations on the manuscript image.
• View a “revision history” for a particular item.
• Search and export to an Excel Spreadsheet.
• and more…

Inventoriana is a wonderful complement to the digitization initiatives currently underway in academic research libraries, museums, and archives. It adds a new dimension to online research and pedagogy by promoting transdiciplinary collaboration and transcending institutional boundaries, creating new pathways to philological and iconographical analysis and discovery. The extensibility of the software makes it appealing not only for medievalists studying manuscripts, but also art historians, cultural studies researchers, and virtually any scholar working with electronic texts and images.

Inventoriana is currently implemented in PHP, with data stored in a MySQL database. Direct specific questions about Inventoriana to Drew Massey.

As a repository of videos clips from a broad array of “public intellectuals,” there is much to be admired about Big Think. In particular, its unique social networking tools really add depth to its video content–users can respond to, create, and classify Ideas on the site, participate in the Big Think collaborative blog, and bookmark/post videos of special interest to Digg, Del.ici.ous, and Facebook. Big Think makes each of its videos sharable by providing embedding codes, direct urls, and “Email to a Friend” forms. All of these features are nicely integrated into a very appealing and intuitive design.

What is distinctly missing from Big Think, however, are research tools that would allow thoughtful readers to explore the video commentaries and Ideas in greater depth. Bibliographies, research guides, electronic databases, Online reference sources, speaker publications, links to digital collections, etc., are nowhere to be found. At least some of these are essential if the site is to truly fulfill its pitch as being a “You Tube of Ideas.”

As academic institutions continue to add video content (faculty lectures, TV/films clips, student presentations, etc.) to course Web pages and to create video archives, a great deal can be learned by analyzing the innovative design and interactive elements of projects like Big Think…as long we don’t neglect to include key elements for further research.

Innovative software called Dekstrus DNE allows researchers to visualize research data through object-oriented mapping. The software allows users to attach results, documents, files, web pages and meta-data directly to the “knowledge elements” on a map. By clicking on any individual object, the map is redrawn around that element and its attributes (meta-data fields) are revealed. This video illustrates the process.

A screenshot of DNE Maps. Each map is a collection of files arranged visually,
providing researchers with a contextual representation of their data.

Dekstrus DNE’s visual mapping allows researchers to simplify the complex relationships between concepts and/or knowledge elements, and to reexamine these “objects” from virtually any angle. The result: a deeper contextual understanding of a research plan, data set or topic. This next video demonstrates the advantages of contextual mapping vs. arranging the same information in list form.

Dekstrus DNE is being made available as a free download to interested researchers. In return, the company would like to be able to publish some maps (non-exclusively) that are built with the software. They also welcome user comments and suggestions!

Hoping to loosen Wikipedia’s tenacious grip on the Online reference market, Google is reportedly developing an experimental information service called Knol (short for “knowledge”). The site, not yet publicly available, would allow individuals to create Web pages on virtually any topic. Unlike Wikipedia, however, only a single author (who would be identified) would be able to author/edit a page, and competing entries would be allowed on the same topic. The service would also feature reader comments, ratings, and suggested changes by users. Knol would also feature Google Ads on topic pages (with the approval of the page authors who would share in the revenues). Wikipedia currently features no ads.

(A screenshot of a sample Knol entry. Click on image for full view.)

Before it is even released, however, Knol is raising concerns among Web publishers who see a fundamental conflict of interest between Google as a search engine and, increasingly, as a provider of Web content and advertising. Their chief concern is the potential for the search giant to privilege its own content and services over those of its competitors by ranking them higher in their search results. The concern of this post, however, is to examine the viability of Knol as a source of accurate information for researchers. In particular, it will examine the implications of highlighting individual authors/editors, having competing pages on the same topic, and sharing ad revenue with Knol authors.

Wikipedia’s crowdsourcing model has kept most authors honest and most entries fairly accurate. The wiki platform and general anonymity of its authorship have helped to make the entries themselves rather than their authors the primary focus of the site. The downside, of course, is that it is often difficult to know who has contributed to specific entries, their relative expertise in the field, their political agendas, special interests, etc. Instances of corporations editing out unflattering descriptions, contributions submitted by bogus “experts,” and inaccuracies of all shapes and sizes have been clearly documented. Still, despite its imperfections, million of avid Wikipedia users believe that its virtues outweigh its deficiencies.

Google’s Knol, on the other hand, takes a radically different, almost regressive approach to generating and organizing encyclopedic knowledge. It rejects the Web 2.0 mantra of open sharing and collaboration in favor of a more traditional model based on clearly identifiable subject specialists. This system of highlighting authors would enable readers to more easily quantify the accuracy of the information presented and the relative expertise of the “experts.” However, personal identification might also create a competitive atmosphere where authors on the same topic compete for “clicks,” not only to satisfy their egos, but for profitability as well. Given Google’s scheme to share ad revenues with authors who opt to have ads posted on their pages, it is not difficult to imagine some authors becoming more interested in generating revenue than providing accurate information in order to get more hits. Example: an author writing on kayaking lists the “best” kayak brands that you should consider buying–you know, the ones that have ads on the page that he/she profits from when you click on them.

Another potential side effect of allowing Knol authors to publish competing pages on the same topic is that it might confuse researchers who might not know which entry is more accurate. Some users may be drawn to pages that are longer or that provide more Web links or bibliography, but these may not necessarily indicate accuracy. Although ratings and comments will reportedly be built into the system, these can only provide a general indication of quality since they depend on the feedback of non-experts.

Google has thrived (and continues to thrive) on its reputation for providing great, objective search results. If Knol is deemed by users as primarily a scheme to grab market share from Wikipedia and to expand ad revenue, chances are that its appeal will not approach that of a non-commercial alternative based on the collective wisdom of the masses. That said, if Google is able to quickly recruit top experts in a wide variety of fields and generate a broad enough range of content where major gaps are not immediately apparent (no small feat!), then users might be willing to overlook things like ads (as they have done with Gmail) and Wikipedia may finally have a competitor in the area of Web reference.

Despite its prohibitive cost structure, crippling DRM, and content limitations, e-book readers like Amazon’s new Kindle (pictured below) have great potential to capture the hearts and minds of tech-savvy educators and students. To accomplish this, however, a number of improvements are clearly needed.

Lower the Cost
Special pricing programs and incentives should be arranged for e-book readers intended for educational use. Currently, the Kindle sells for $399 plus: $9.99 for most books; 5.99-14.99/mo. for most newspapers; $1.25-3.49/mo. for most magazines; and a $0.10 fee when sending yourself documents. This cost structure is simply too high for most schools, teachers, and students. The $0.10 fee to upload documents that you already own to a device that you already paid for is absurd and should be eliminated outright.

Remove the DRM
The DRM on the Kindle is onerous by any measure. Even Apple, that provides iPod owners with DRM-encoded music through their iTunes store, still allows users to upload virtually any kind of audio file onto their iPods. The Kindle, on the other hand, supports a limited number of text formats, and its main source of content, the Amazon store, uses a proprietary format (AZW) that will only display on a Kindle and no other device. This prohibits content sharing among users for e-books that they purchased and supposedly “own.” It also means that students may not transfer content onto a laptop or PC with a word processor, making it impossible to cut/paste passages and citations from Kindle e-books directly into course papers.

Expand Support for Content
A “scholarly” Kindle would also need to broaden its compatibility with formats commonly used by researchers and instructors, especially PDFs, PowerPoint documents, and Excel files. Amazon’s device currently only supports Kindle (AZW), TXT, Audible (formats 2, 3 and 4), MP3, unprotected MOBI, PRC natively; HTML, DOC, JPEG, GIF, PNG, BMP through conversion. The lack of PDF support is perhaps the most glaring omission. Yes, it is possible to use Mobi creator to convert PDF’s to MOBI format and then upload them to the Kindle via USB, but this is an inefficient, multi-step process that should be unnecessary. PDFs should run natively on these devices.

A blog post on Wesleying exclaims, “I hate dealing with all the pdfs I get assigned for reading and that I use for research, but if I could download them all onto something like this [the Kindle], it’d be pretty cool and over the course of 4 years of college would likely pay for itself in printing costs alone.”

Provide Cheap, Searchable Kindle-Formatted Textbooks
E-book developers like Amazon should aggressively negotiate with textbook publishers to make eductional materials available in e-book format at a substantial discount for students. Christopher Dawson, a high school teacher and IT administrator, writes in his Kindle blog post: “At anywhere from $50-$200 a pop, textbooks are a huge expense; if substantial discounts could accompany the downloadable content and the content could be easily moved among Kindles based on course offerings, I’d be pitching these things like crazy to the school committee.” Universities and colleges should also make it easy for students to download course packs or sourcebooks to handheld readers.

Kindle RSS & Document Delivery
Just as owners of the Kindle currently have the option of subscribing to daily editions of newspapers, simple tools should be developed that would allow anyone to “push” content to an e-book device by creating their own “subscription” service or RSS feed. Teachers would be able to automatically send their students (even those who are absent) readings, problem sets, homework assignments, and handouts. Libraries would be able to automatically lend users e-books based on particular subjects or keyword searches.

Compatibility with Licensed E-Resources & Bibliographic Managers
If researchers could configure their devices to automatically search for and download the full text of scholarly articles from licensed e-resources directly onto their e-book readers, as well as generate an Endnote/RefWorks-compatible bibliography of the books/articles on their handhelds, Kindle-like devices would take academia by storm. Much of this compatibility, of course, depends as much upon the publishers/developers of the databases as the e-book reader manufacturers themselves.

Conclusion
Despite these gripes, we must give the Kindle its due. The fact that it is generating so much discussion and excitement means that it did get a lot of things right, especially in terms of its form factor, readability, EVDO connectivity (although WiFi would also be nice!), and battery life. I, like many of my library and academic colleagues, are eagerly anticipating version 2.0, hoping that it might address some of the issues that would make it an indispensible tool for teachers, researchers, and students. Naturally, we’ll also be watching for Kindle-clones and competitors who might adopt a more open platform at a more reasonable price point.

Google’s recent announcement that it is providing a common set of APIs for social applications across multiple websites (their OpenSocial initiative), has potentially grand implications for scholars. Using simple JavaScript and HTML, academic Web developers will now be able to create subject-specific research apps that can be shared across multiple social networks.

Here is Google’s You Tube video describing the OpenSocial standard:

Imagine if a group of molecular biologists decided to create their own version of MySpace or to simply form a research group or virtual community within an existing social network like Orkut. The purpose of the group would be to connect experts in their field, share ideas, exchange data, create a repository of research papers, etc. OpenSocial would not only allow them to customize apps to meet the needs of their professional community, but also to share these same apps across other social networking sites that support the OpenSocial standard. A common set of APIs means that the potential size of their virtual research community, as well as the resources they share, are no longer limited by the social networking platform they happen to be using.

The real excitement will begin when academic technologists devise ways to seamlessly interconnect these “scholarly social networks” with one another, as well as with key resources like the growing number of open access repositories at major universities. A common development standard marks a very important step in this direction.

UPDATE: A local startup called SciLink ( http://www.scilink.com) is actually making the theory behind “scholarly social networks” a reality. SciLink is a professional network tool for scientists. It contains 5.8 million scientific profiles and 104 million co-author relationships. This is accomplished through a combination of real time web and database mining to expose the naturally occurring networks that exist in scholarly literature. SciLink is being used by the academic, government and pharmaceutical industry to enumerate their internal and external collaborator expertise networks. They are aggressively pursuing the development of the OpenSocial SPI (Service Providers Interface) and will be announcing a fully functional version in mid 2008. Check them out at: http://www.scilink.com

Three Harvard humanities course Web sites were presented by Presidential Instructional Technology Fellows (PITFs) at the Digital Humanities and Innovative Computing PITF Showcase event on Thursday, Nov. 8. Each presentation included a description of the course and a demonstration of selected features on the course site.

Note: the course site links below require a HUID/PIN for access.

Humanities 27: Travel and Transformation in the Early 17th Century
http://my.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k16254
Some highlighted features of the course Web site included a clickable ship tour, integrated You Tube video clips, interviews with faculty and lecturers, interactive timelines, Google Maps and Google Earth modules, and a hyperlinked syllabus. A good overview of Stephen Greenblatt’s course site is featured in a recent Chronicle for Higher Education article: http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i09/09a00103.htm

Literature and Arts B-27: Majesty and Mythology in African American Art
http://my.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k17048
The PITFs working on this project demonstrated You Tube clips of African dance and culture, PowerPoint lectures uploaded to the site, digitized images of Peabody Museum objects, documentary and feature film clips, and PDFs/JSTOR links to course readings.

Literature and Arts B-85: American Musicals and American Culture
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/2449
The student illustrated an impressive Flash-generated “flippable” book made from a theatrical program discovered in the Harvard Theater Collection. He also mentioned that the course site contained a repository for JTOR links, as well as audio and video clips.

Discussion following the presentations touched upon topics such as making the course materials available to students beyond Harvard, questions of copyright and fair use, using the course sites for in-class teaching, and how to assess guided vs. exploratory browsing.

Overall, a wonderful demonstration of how some of the latest technologies are currently being integrated into Humanities course Web sites at Harvard!

During the 2007-2008 academic year, Harvard will be hosting a number of talks and workshops on the “digital humanities” in an effort to introduce innovative computing techniques for research and teaching in the humanities and non-quantitative social sciences.

The first workshop, co-sponsored by the Humanities Center and the Initiative for Innovative Computing, was held on October 17, 2007. It provided an overview of a variety of technologies useful in humanities research and teaching, including: geospatial visualizations, text mining, multiverses, 2D and 3D imagery, audio technology, content management systems, wikis, online collaboration, and various online humanities sites. The primary audience for this event was Harvard faculty, but a large number of librarians and technology-minded researchers also attended.

Professor Mark Schiefsky of Harvard’s Department of the Classics joined me in presenting the topic of Texts: Encoding, Mining, Analyzing. Here is Mark’s abstract for his talk entitled “The Challenges of Philology for the Digital Humanities”:

While recent developments in information technology have certainly opened up new opportunities for scholars working in philologically oriented fields, the challenges posed by such fields for the long-term development of the digital humanities are perhaps even greater. We need new software that is (1) linguistically aware, (2) based on the distribution rather than centralization of resources, and (3) more interactive, allowing for annotation as well as browsing and providing a means for the results of automatic analysis to be used as the starting point of further research. I will present a software platform developed at Harvard University as a first step towards meeting these challenges (see http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu).

My talk, “ePhilology in Action: Corpus-Level Analysis and Discovery,” focused on some of the innovative tools transforming the philological study of literary texts, including: automated morphological analysis, verbal pattern identification, and machine-enabled concordance generation. I briefly illustrated three Web projects that highlighted the application of some of these technologies: the Princeton Dante Project, the Perseus Digital Library, and the Nora Project.

Future events in the digital humanities series at Harvard will feature innovative computing projects at other institutions, new courseware tools, various Web development platforms, a discussion of funding sources for the digital humanities, and related topics. For additional information on the series and links to humanities computing projects, conferences, organizations, articles and other key resources, please consult The Digital Humanities Initiative web site at Harvard.