I'd add two points:
(1) I agree with Stuart that arts-humanities.net has useful resources
and methods that may help to disentangle some of the ambiguity here.
In particular the taxonomy/folksonomy techniques for categorizing
resources and tools by academic area as well as methodology, etc. We
also have tags in the DC wiki that could be useful here --a given page
could be tagged as "Byzantine" as well as "XML" as well as "epigraphy"
as well as "project", for example. The "category:Byzantine" page would
therefore be a useful filter for Byzantinists who don't want to see
all this Homer rubbish in their wiki. (Sadly, however, I don't think
MediaWiki has a way to filter results by two categories
simultaneously--unless someone can correct me?)
(2) On the other hand, there is a certain value in discrete
communities for individual academic areas. A few years ago we were
discussing the pros and cons of having a single "digital philology"
community instead of separate DC and DM. It was felt at the time, I
think, that many Classicists (and for that matter mediaevalists) would
not join such a community because it was not focused enough on their
needs. (Not to mention that the historians, archaeologists,
philosophers, and other non-philologists would be left out in the
cold.) So it comes back to my original question to Charlotte: do you
know any Byzantinists who would be philosophically opposed to (or just
unenthusiastic about) membership of a "Classicist" community?
G
On 19 May 2010 13:30, Stuart Dunn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I think one of the most interesting things about this group, and indeed
> other Digital [namespace] lists are the methods inherent in the 'digital'
> bit - especially - when considered in the light of different
> (sub)disciplines. How does an application of a technology or piece of
> software in one (spatially or chronologically specific) area feed back in to
> its development, and thus its application in another? The DC wiki already
> has comprehensive resources on tools and projects and, checking back just
> now, it strikes me that the line between these is not always clear - maybe
> this crossover helps explain that? And maybe some kind of articulation of
> methods along these lines would help us to express the sum of DC's parts
> better, and therefore provide Byzantinists (and others) with more of a
> foothold? Maybe the resources/approaches of arts-humanities.net could help
> us?
>
> Rather more question marks than I intended there.
>
> -Stuart
>
> Melissa Terras wrote:
>>
>> I agree with the avoidance of duplication of effort (and email lists) -
>> and the more the merrier, imho.
>>
>> Melissa
>>
>> On 19/05/2010 11:18, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I have always intended for Digital Classicist to be welcoming to
>>> Byzantinists, in the hope that this is not seen as academic
>>> imperialism! (I'm sure DM would say the same thing... I suppose it
>>> depends to what extent the needs of Byzantinists overlap with those of
>>> ancient Hellenists [Greek encoding, primary text issues] and to what
>>> extent with Western Mediaevalists [time period, manuscripts].) Michael
>>> Jerrfreys and Charlotte Roueché were among the first scholars invited
>>> to the advisory board.
>>>
>>> As a general rule I would tend to urge against the miltiplication of
>>> entities and bodies, but I suppose the really deciding factory would
>>> be, to what extent would you expect Byzantine scholars to be put off
>>> by association with a Classicist community, as opposed to a community
>>> of their own.
>>>
>>> Would it help if we added a few words to this effect to the DC front
>>> page?
>>>
>>> G
>>>
>>> On 19 May 2010 10:11, Charlotte Roueche<[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear All
>>>>
>>>> With so much work on MSS (transcribed in the Byzantine period!) and
>>>> scholia
>>>> (frequently by Byzantine scholars) I have been wondering about outreach
>>>> to
>>>> Digital Byzantinists. We (Byzantinists) could set up a separate DigByz
>>>> list,
>>>> with links to DigClass and DigMed. Is that kind of multiplication a good
>>>> thing? Or could we create DigClassPlus? Would DigClass be prepared to
>>>> slightly extend its self-definition - the ancient and Byzantine worlds?
>>>> -
>>>> and then extend a formal invitation to Byzantinists to join?
>>>>
>>>> Charlotte
>>>> ----------------------------
>>>> Professor Charlotte Roueché
>>>> Department of Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies/Department of Classics
>>>> King's College
>>>> London WC2R 2LS
>>>> direct tel. + 44 20.7848 2515
>>>> fax + 44 20.7848 2545
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/humanities/depts/bmgs/staff/roueche.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> -----------------------
>
>
> Dr Stuart Dunn
> Research Fellow
> Centre for e-Research
> King's College London
>
> www.ahessc.ac.uk/stuart-dunn
>
> Tel +44 (0)207 848 2709
> Fax +44 (0)207 848 1989
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Centre for e-Research
> 26-29 Drury Lane
> London WC2B 5RL
> UK
>
> Geohash: http://geohash.org/gcpvj1zm7yp1
>
--
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Epigrapher & Digital Classicist)
Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980
http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/
|