Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

ResearchSpace Collaborative Features

566 views

Published on

Workshop on collaborative features for ResearchSpace system for cultural heritage research

Published in: Internet
  • Be the first to comment

ResearchSpace Collaborative Features

  1. 1. Collaborative Features Barry Norton February 2015
  2. 2. Schedule • In previous workshops: – Dominic has presented a project overview – Barry has given a technical overview of search features – Alan has provided some intuition of what search between concepts means • In this presentation we will cover some of the early features for collaboration • In future workshops we will cover: – Data Annotation (March) – Image Annotation – Forum & Workflow (advanced collaborative features)
  3. 3. Project Update • Previously we introduced: – Sarah Mengler (RA) – Alan Outten (UI/UX) • We are now joined by: – Chris Dijkshoorn (Placement from VUA) • Next week we hope to be joined by: – Daniela Butano (Lead Developer) • As suppliers we are about to start our second contract with metaphacts: – Peter Haase (Architect) – Artem Kozlov (Developer)
  4. 4. Background: Information Workbench • Wiki, like Wikipedia (Media Wiki) allows: – pages to be written in simple ‘mark-down’ – collaborative editing • Plus visualisation and interaction via ‘widgets’:
  5. 5. Background: Rijkstudio Sets • User-defined collections • Focussed on images/image regions • Sharable:
  6. 6. Background: Spotify Playlists • User-defined lists of tracks • Can be shared, often used for collaboration and (it’s not a stretch to say) back up articles:
  7. 7. Intuition • In Spotify playlists are just lists of tracks (ignoring even albums) – If one were researching and communicating about music, one would want to collect and share: • tracks, albums, artists, labels, etc. • In Rijkstudio sets are just images or image regions – If one were researching and communicating about cultural heritage, one would want to collect and share: • people, places, events, materials, techniques, etc.
  8. 8. RS Search and Sets • The new UI design for search, informed by the last workshop, produced by Alan and narrated by Dominic are now available: http://www.researchspace.org/home/project-information/design http://youtu.be/VUGMlDc9B5w
  9. 9. RS Search and Sets (cntd.) • In last workshop we gave intuition how one search (e.g. for objects) can be used to start a new search (e.g. for people):
  10. 10. RS Search and Sets (cntd.) • In last workshop we gave intuition how one search (e.g. for objects) can be used to start a new search (e.g. for people):
  11. 11. RS Search and Sets (cntd.) • However, we actually plan to offer four options in choosing search terms: Arbitrary object by autocomplete
  12. 12. RS Search and Sets (cntd.) • However, we actually plan to offer four options in choosing search terms: Arbitrary object by autocomplete Existing search yielding objects
  13. 13. RS Search and Sets (cntd.) • However, we actually plan to offer four options in choosing search terms: Arbitrary object by autocomplete Objects already visited and copied to clipboard Existing search yielding objects
  14. 14. RS Search and Sets (cntd.) • However, we actually plan to offer four options in choosing search terms: Arbitrary object by autocomplete Objects already visited and copied to clipboard {User-defined sets/collections of objects Existing search yielding objects
  15. 15. RS Search and Sets (cntd.) • Furthermore, we plan to allow users to build up sets/collections from search results:
  16. 16. RS Search and Sets (cntd.) • Furthermore, we plan to allow users to build up sets/collections from search results: Copy individual result to clipboard
  17. 17. RS Search and Sets (cntd.) • Furthermore, we plan to allow users to build up sets/collections from search results: Copy individual result to clipboard Create new set/collection with individual result as first member
  18. 18. RS Search and Sets (cntd.) • Furthermore, we plan to allow users to build up sets/collections from search results: Copy individual result to clipboard Create new set/collection with individual result as first member Add individual result to existing set/collection
  19. 19. RS Search and Sets (cntd.) • Furthermore, we plan to allow users to build up sets/collections from search results: Copy individual result to clipboard Create new set/collection with individual result as first member Add individual result to existing set/collection Create new set/collection with all results
  20. 20. Motivation • I have from Richard Parkinson and Malcolm Mosher respective manuscripts that list objects: – in an endnote to the manuscript source (i.e. not published) – distributed across footnotes • Potential advances: – manage these collections during research; – aid collaborative research; – ease publication of linked (reproducable) results. More later, but first some questions…
  21. 21. Questions • We’ve used both the terms – ‘set’ – • consistent with Rijkstudio, • (for better and worse) mathematically valid; – ‘collection’ – • possibly more intuitive, • potentially ambiguous wrt museum collections; • less intuitive for sets of, e.g., events. • Perhaps ‘user-defined collection’? Alternatives?
  22. 22. Questions (cntd.) • There’s a subtle difference between: – saved search definition – • re-runs search, perhaps as part of a larger search; – saved search results – • never change (even if subject data does), • can be manipulated (explicitly add or remove members). • Is this too confusing? Useful?
  23. 23. Questions (cntd.) • One can imagine (as a technologist) making sets more structured – e.g. hierarchical: • define a set of Naukratis objects, • define a subset of BM Naukratis objects, • define a different subset of religiously-themed Naukratis objects. • Is this over-complicated? Would users be happy with such sets without formal relationships between them?
  24. 24. Clipboard vs. Sets vs. Pages • Sets (/Collections) are deliberately defined as homogenous – e.g. an object set can only have objects added • Sometimes one might want to keep track of a collection of entities – e.g. a set of places, and the objects found there, and their original owners • The clipboard will be a heterogenous assembly of copied entities (i.e. not just one entry – cf. Microsoft Office) We’ll come back to this in next workshop on Data Annotation…. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipboard_manager
  25. 25. Clipboard vs. Pages • We had considered ‘shared clipboards’ • The Information Workbench platform however motivates different approach: – The platform will provide a page per object, person, place, event, etc. – Search results (later forum posts, textual annotations), etc. themselves become pages – As a Wiki, it’s natural that users can make new pages
  26. 26. User-Defined Pages • User-defined pages: – allow simple authoring of text in ‘mark-down’; – could be aided further with a WYSWYG editor (with buttons for formatting, rather than mark- down); – would be a target for pasting from clipboard (objects, places, etc. also image/regions and later beliefs and arguments); – naturally become a target for clipboard copying.
  27. 27. User-Defined Pages • Although speculative we could even view pages as collaborative ‘proto-publications’: – attach argument and belief (see next workshop) into larger discussions; – typed links (so, instead of just pasting you specify whether this supports your narrative, whether you’re contradicting it, etc.); – draft sections of papers; – tie together and automate article publication with data publication.

×