What makes a good digital edition? What features do digital editions share? What is the state of the art in the field of digital editions? Why are there so few electronic editions of ancient texts? To address these questions, I have collated relevant evidence in a detailed catalogue of digital editions. Amongst other things, the catalogue makes a distinction between scholarly and non-scholarly projects, provides a list of tools used, as well as information about standards-compliant editions and openness. Why does this project bring to the Digital Humanities community? A catalogue of digital editions is greatly beneficial as it provides: · an accessible, unique record of which texts have had digital editions created and the historical period they belong to; · a data bank of features, tools, licenses, funding bodies and locations; · an insight into past, present and future projects; · the possibility of viewing trends or patterns (e.g. what time periods are most covered or which institutions produce the largest number of digital editions); · a platform where collaborators can engage in live discussions and update information as it becomes available; · a means of identifying which areas need to be improved. The editions I include in the catalogue come from numerous sources and their selection follows basic criteria: the electronic texts can be ongoing or complete projects, born- digital editions or electronic reproductions of print volumes. These were gathered from existing catalogues, lists, such as Projects using the TEI, RSS feeds, publications (articles, reviews and books), Google Scholar alerts, tweets, word of mouth, web browsing and chaining. Data is carefully collected and assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Content analysis is being carried out along two parallel tracks: a passive approach, whereby I contact each team with a short questionnaire aimed at gaining a deeper understanding of both the production and user ends of the project; and a more active, observational examination of the electronic editions through website and related publications analysis. Interesting facts are already beginning to emerge: several projects, for instance, have not set up analytics as a means of studying usage; projects urging the digital reunification of manuscript fragments are often internally fragmented themselves, having split the project between institutions rather than centralising the material for easy retrieval and management; and TEI guidelines are not as widely adopted as we might think. Once all the data has been analysed, it will be possible to establish the state of the art in the field of electronic editing, draw up a best practice profile and make reliable inferences from which further research can stem and develop. To date, the catalogue showcases some two-hundred digital editions, collected and examined over a period of ten months. Of course, there are many more editions left to include and, indeed, many more to come. While initially collated for personal research purposes, I have now developed the catalogue into a larger resource, available at: https://sites.google.com/site/digitaleds. The website enables people to report bugs and errors, comment and make suggestions for improvement. Although initially curated by myself, the catalogue is currently being updated and improved by myself and twenty-seven collaborators across the globe. The ultimate aim of the catalogue is not only to be used as a project reference tool but also to bring together scholars in the field, thus systematically and collaboratively creating a unique bank of data which would figure alongside other prominent Digital Humanities resources such as centerNet, the Digital Classicist Wiki and the various associations (ADHO, ACH, ALLC, etc.).
|Titolo della pubblicazione ospite||Digital Scholarly Editing: Theories and Practices|
|Editor||Matthew James Driscoll Elena Pierazzo|
|Numero di pagine||22|
|Stato di pubblicazione||Pubblicato - 2016|
- digital scholarly edition