eHumanities
This wrap-up discusses the challenges and solutions in sustaining software and tools in the eHumanities sector. Key issues include the obsolescence of file formats, complexities in maintaining software emulation, and the difficulty of preserving original look and feel. The importance of community engagement in maintenance, funding responsibilities, and the need for a national body to oversee sustainability efforts are emphasized. Insights on making tools reusable and interoperable are provided, along with recommendations for better training and collaboration between institutions in the Netherlands and the UK.
eHumanities
E N D
Presentation Transcript
eHumanities Address Software and Tools Sustainability Wrap-up… …or Warp-down Mark Dupuis
Barbara Sierman (KB/NL) • E-depot has existed for over 10 years • Risk of obsolete file formats • Risk of losing original look and feel • Emulation of software becomes increasingly complex
Neil Chue Hong (SSI/UK) • Novelty is rewarded, re-use is not • Hacking new stuff is fun, maintenance old stuff is not • Preserving function is less hard than preserving form • Generalising software makes it increasingly hard to target users • Even a small team (9 FTE) can work wonders by engaging the community and distributing training activities
Policy & Organisation • Take the research (life-)cycle as a starting-point • Data browsing, collection & generation • Storage andcuration • Labellingand metadating • Annotation • AnalysingandVisualising • Reviewingandpublishing • Make tools reusableandinteroperable
Policy & Organisation (cont.) • Whoshouldbepayingfor software and tools maintenance? • The researcher / the research institution? • The fundingorganisation? • In case of the latter, should we leave the funding issue to the research community? • Drivers: • Self-interest on the part of the researcher / institution • Requirementsbyfundingorganisations in the research grants • Towhatextent are fundersresponsiblefor the third stage, i.e. valorisation, commercialisation
Policy & Organisation (cont.) • Do we need a Dutch counterpart of the British SSI? • Yes, we needsomesort of national body • It mightbeanexistinginstitution • Whatabout a coalition (DANS, NLeSC, 3TU Data Centre, DEN)? KB, SURF??? • Do we need a Seal of Approvalforsustainable software? • Yes, ultimately we want aninternationalstamp, but fornowlet’s set up a nationalone • But we alsoneedSSPs (cf. DMPs) • NL and UK shouldconsider (further) collaboration in the area of sustainability of software and tools
Technology & Services • We are dealingwith a number of problems: • Different types of software • Different sustainabilityrequirements • Different divisionswithinhumanities • The currentfunding model is not right(certainlynottailoredforsustainability) • There is a lot of amateur software out there • Humanities is varied landscape
Technology & Services (cont.) • Conclusions / Actions • We’re talking hundreds of tools • Strive for abstraction of commonalities • Produce more robust software • Skepticism about yet another institute – and seal, for that matter • “Registry” (single/unified national or world-wide (?) eHumanitiesportal) • Incorporate maintenance costs in proposals • Set up training/consultancy programmes
