Most assignments will be posted on this WordPress site. We will use Sakai for posting grades.
A note on blog posts: writing for a Web site or a blog is different than writing an essay. Blog postings should be concise, preferably no more than 250 – 300 words. (If you blog regularly on your own site, an occasional more lengthy post that examines a topic in-depth is good.) Writing an informed blog post for a public audience usually requires multiple drafts and revisions. Also, consider helping your reader by making judicial use of bolding keywords or phrases in a paragraph, which is something you would never do in an essay. But, carefully selected bolding in a blog post aids the reader who glances at a post for the highlights before deciding to read the text closely.
Blog post #1
Examine one of the scholarly digital sites listed on the course site, or choose another scholarly site, and write a blog post describing a specific feature of that site. The intent of this exercise is for you to think about how the encoding enables the various functionality of a Web site. If you need inspiration for what type of content should be in your blog post, then take a look at some of the reviews of digital editions, particularly the review of the Mary Shelley Frankenstein Notebooks. Due 1/30/15.
Blog post #2
Based upon the readings and discussion for this class, each student will write a blog post on the topic, “Why use TEI and when not to use TEI?” Choose another document format as a point of contrast and explain why one would encode in TEI instead. Possible formats for comparison: PDF, HTML, plain text, Microsoft Word, JPEG images, Kindle. Also, discuss in which situations you would want to choose one of those other formats instead of TEI. Due 2/6/15.
Blog post #3
In this class session you’ve had hands-on experience with manuscripts. In a blog posting reflect on what aspects of a printed text are difficult, or even impossible, to encode and what choices have to be made about what to include and exclude when encoding a text? Use the Katherine Hayles reading for next class as a springboard for informing your blog post. Due 2/13/15.
Your final TEI project consists of several deliverables. Except for the post-project analysis, all project grades will be given to the group. For students in FREN 341, all of the DH 190 project deliverables will count toward your FREN 341 project grade.
Part 1 of your project proposal should describe the topic and scope of your TEI encoding project. It should be collaboratively written within your group. Use this project rationale worksheet to guide your thinking. The proposal should be 1-2 pages and broadly address the intended audience, your goals, your source material, and give a sense of what the final product will look like. Take a look at the “home” or “about” pages of other digital editions to get a sense for how they introduce their projects. Due 2/20/15.
Part 1 of your project proposal will be graded on the following rubric:
Start from 0 (zero) and add points up to 7.5.
+1 point if you actually submit the project proposal
+1 point if it appears collaboratively written.
+1 point if it’s the right length. The assignment says 1-2 two pages, so it should be at least 250 words.
+1 point if the project proposal identifies the goals of the project.
+1 point if the project proposal explains how encoding will enhance the interpretation or display of your source material. For instance, what are potential research questions that this project enables.
+1 point if the project proposal identifies the audience that would benefit from the encoding of the source material
+1 if the project proposal identifies what type of supplemental material will you have to prepare?
+.5 of a point if the proposal is clearly written and without grammatical errors
Part 2 of your project proposal is the group charter. Now that you’ve had a little more time to work with TEI and as a group, it’s time to hash out and document the details. Check out the resources and examples from Scholars’ Lab. This is a living document and might change over time as your project evolves. Having a charter forces your group to establish a set of shared expectations. Your charter should thoughtfully address these topics specifically: markup or tag decisions (should also be included in the in the TEI Header), division of labor, self-imposed deadlines, group communication and accountability, and any commitment to creating secondary materials (bibliography etc.) Your group might decide that members should play to their strengths and execute a part of the project most closely aligned with their skill set. Perhaps your team decides that each contributor will mark up a certain number of pages. Either approach is fine, but use the charter to document your decision. The only rule is that all group members must be responsible for some TEI markup. Due 3/6/15.
Part 2 of your project proposal (charter) will be graded on the following rubric:
+1 point if you actually submit the project proposal
+1 point if it appears collaboratively written
+1 point if it’s the right length (250+ words)
+1 point if every group member has designated responsibilities
+1 point if you’ve addressed the elements of your text that will receive markup
+1 point if you’ve identified your strategy for group cooperation and communication (for instance, how will you handle multiple editors of a single document?)
+1 point if you’ve addressed how you will handle peer review and revisions
+.5 point if the charter is clearly written and without grammatical errors
The project product consists all the files associated with your project: TEI XML, schema (.rnc and ODD), CSS if used, your original source material (scans and/or transcription), and a link to its location on the web, if applicable. We will accept a link to the Box folder. We’re looking for: valid TEI and well-formed XML, appropriate use of tags for the chosen material, customized and documented schema, description of editorial decisions, appropriate level of detail for length of document, quality of any contextual material, and consistency of markup throughout project. We will accept revised project proposals if there are things that you encountered during encoding that affected your initial plans or changed your mind about the direction of the project. Due 4/10/15 by 11:59pm.
We will gather on the last day of class for group presentations. Each group will have 30 minutes for presentation and discussion. Groups should introduce their project and its goals, give a brief tour through their texts (both the XML and web presentation), discuss meaningful editorial decisions, lay out future directions for the project, and share any reactions to the content or format of the course. Each student should both present and bring questions to ask of other groups. Due 4/10/15.
This analysis is submitted directly to the instructors and will not be shared with the class or posted on the course site and is due by the end of exam week. Due 4/17/15 by 5pm.
In two – three pages, examine the following:
- Describe your role in the group and your contribution to the project. Now that you understand what goes into making a digital edition, is there a role that you feel more drawn to based on your interests?
- Which tags were the most challenging to apply? Which sections of the text required the most analysis? Are there decisions you would have made differently?
- How do you foresee encoded texts being useful in your own scholarship and in the larger scholarly community? Are there other texts that you would find especially useful if they were available in TEI and why?
- For students in FREN 341: how did this studio course affect your understanding of the material in the French course?
- For students not in FREN 341: how did this studio course affect your understanding of primary source material and the experience of publishing it on the Web?
|Attendance and participation||15%|