1. The document discusses creating digital facsimiles of medieval texts and music by aggregating resources from different repositories in a distributed manner. 2. It proposes exposing repository data through APIs and shared data models to allow greater use, sustainability, and enhancement of repository resources through new presentations and linked additional materials. 3. As an example, it demonstrates linking a medieval music manuscript image from one repository with a transcription of its text from another repository and re-presenting them together in an interface that could also connect to other related resources from different sources.

1. Facsimiles of Text and Music
From Distributed Resources
Benjamin Albritton
blalbrit@stanford.edu
Scholarly Editions and the Digital Age: Text and Music
31 August 2012, Bloomington, IN

2. Overview
• Brief context of current medieval manuscript
interoperability work
• Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
• Stanford and partners
• What do we mean by “interoperability”?

3. The Problem
• Medieval projects as “curated and
comprehensive” efforts
• Technical and social silos
• Expensive to maintain
• Difficult to extend

4. The Goal
• Toward a “commons” of distributed resources
• Aggregating information and extensibility as
an alternate to “curated and comprehensive”
• Allow people to do cool new stuff with our
stuff (without losing our relevance)

5. Text Repositories
• Long history
• Deep inventory
• Domain-specific (often)
• Some images
• Static Interface
• …

6. Image Repositories
• A “standard model”
• Lots of images
• Descriptive metadata
• Silo interfaces
• Built-in tools
• No way to access
outside “stuff” for
comparison
• Mediates use
• Expensive to maintain

7. Repository to Repository
Parker: CCCC 410 – De speculatione musice
• One-off sharing
• Human-brokered
• But:
• Expense
• Not scalable
• What if:
• CHMTL wants
images for all MSS
of its texts?
• Parker wants texts
for all its music
theory?
• BNF wants… ? CHMTL: 1970, Corpus scriptorum text
of De speculatione musice

8. But what about…
• Other resources
“about” an object
or text
• … stored and
served in other
places
• … that you might
not know about
• How to build
extensible
facsimiles?

9. “Interoperability”
• Step 1: Expose resources to
shared tools
• Step 2: Enhance resources
• Match text to image
• Match image to text
• Exposure is low cost
• Shared tools let other people
make your stuff better
• Specialists build the domain-
specific tools

10. Step 3: Enhance existing data

11. Step 4: CHMTL text + Parker image

12. Digital Facsimiles from
Distributed Resources
• Parker image served from Stanford
• Text provided by CHMTL
• Linkage produced in T-PEN
• Data for text re-stored at Los Alamos National
Lab
• Re-presented in a new environment that also
allows presentation of even more annotations
and links

13. Aggregating distributed resources

14. Transcribing from Digital Surrogates
La Terre de Secille

15. Naïve Approach: Attach Transcription to Image
One problem example: Multiple Representations
CCC 26 f. iiiR

16. Naïve Approach: Attach Transcription to Image
One problem example: Multiple Representations
CCC 26 f. iiiR Fold A Open

17. Naïve Approach: Attach Transcription to Image
One problem example: Multiple Representations
CCC 26 f. iiiR Fold A Open Fold A and B Open

18. Naïve Approach: Attach Transcription to Image
One problem example: Multiple Representations
CCC 26 f. iiiR Fold A Open Fold A and B Open f. iiiV

19. The Shared Canvas
• Represents a real world thing we
want to “talk” about
• Has a unique name
• http://dms-data.stanford.edu/Parker/CCC026/canvas-12

20. Facsimiles are “about” a real thing

21. Parker Image re-served in
SharedCanvas viewer

22. Re-presented with text in side-by-side
view…

23. … or overlaid

24. The Distributed Facsimile

25. Examples of other resources attached
to the facsimile:
• Detail images overlaid

26. Examples of other resources attached
to the facsimile:
• User-generated
comments (public
and private)
• Audio
performances of
notated music
• Overlaid text
transcription
• Also:
• Data sets
• Mark-up
• Base image
choices

27. Conclusion
• Distributed resources exist independently of the
aggregation – could be re-presented in any UI
• In short:
– Expose repository and project data via API and
common data models
– Leads to:
• Greater use of repository resources
• Sustainability
• Enhanced repository data
• Cool new uses of the data we’ve already produced

28. Thank You
• More Info:
– Benjamin Albritton, Stanford University Libraries
• blalbrit@stanford.edu
– CHMTL & Dr. Giuliano Di Bacco, Indiana University
• http://www.chmtl.indiana.edu/
– SharedCanvas
• Author and architect: Robert Sanderson, Los Alamos National Lab
– azaroth42@gmail.com
• Description and implementations:
– www.shared-canvas.org
– T-PEN
• PI: James Ginther (coming up next), Saint Louis University
• Try it!
– http://t-pen.org/TPEN
– Slides (within a week)
• http://www.stanford.edu/group/dmstech/