1 / 6

Workshop reports

Workshop reports. Abstracts of the findings from the two parallel tracks, during eHumanities address software and tools, provided by the rapporteurs , Peter Wittenburg (Policy and Organization) Walter Lioen (Technology and services) Compiled by Mark Dupuis (SURF). Problems.

gratia
Download Presentation

Workshop reports

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Workshop reports • Abstracts of the findings from the two parallel tracks, during eHumanities address software and tools, provided by the rapporteurs, • Peter Wittenburg (Policy and Organization) • Walter Lioen (Technology and services) • Compiled by Mark Dupuis (SURF) Software and Tools Sustainability – Technology and Services

  2. Problems • Different types of software: • algorithmicalmodules • widely used community software (PRAAT, ELAN, etc.) • infrastructural software (repository software, meta data aggregation, portals) • core services (persistent identifiers) • Have different sustainability requirements: • algorithmically: very dynamic • community software: both stability of existing features and extensions • infrastructural software: well-maintained • core services: proven technology • For some types: • working in niche markets • special: researcher workflows built in software • no formal verification, lack of test suitessometimes testing by students Software and Tools Sustainability – Technology and Services

  3. Problems • Funding model isn’t right • development costs, about 20%, are funded via proposals • maintenance costs are not made explicit and remain “hidden” in the proposals • this is not a sustainable model Software and Tools Sustainability – Technology and Services

  4. A lot of software is developed by engaged “amateurs” (PhDs, etc.) • This leaves the software unsustainable although its needed for follow-up research • There always remains a need for the Darwin model • It isn’t necessarily wrong to re-invent the wheel Software and Tools Sustainability – Technology and Services

  5. Are there in technology and or criteria ehumanities’ specifics? • use varies from theatre studies to neuro cognition modeling • more traditional fields: more tool usage • upcoming paradigms: more software development like Software and Tools Sustainability – Technology and Services

  6. Conclusions / Actions • Some hundreds of tools • Abstraction of commonalities and based on this produce more robust software • Quality: skeptical about yet another institute but we all like to start with a light-weight quality seal (similar to DSA) • team stability • funding stream • responsiveness (bugs, support, feature requests) • documentation • No big committee • “Registry” (1 single/unified national eHumanities portal) • Trusted group • Simplicity for the users • Light-weight seal can be integrated • Have software maintenance costs incorporated in proposals • commissioned services model • Using valorization grants • Training, consultancy, fellowship programs (Neil) Software and Tools Sustainability – Technology and Services

More Related