Home About Subscribe Search Member Area

Humanist Discussion Group

< Back to Volume 32

Humanist Archives: Nov. 9, 2018, 7:12 a.m. Humanist 32.172 - on annotation

                  Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 32, No. 172.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                   Hosted by King's Digital Lab
                Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org

    [1]    From: Wesley Raabe 
           Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.169: on annotation? (50)

    [2]    From: vzafrin@bu.edu
           Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.169: on annotation? (18)

    [3]    From: Katherine Harris 
           Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.169: on annotation? (36)

    [4]    From: Richard Cunningham 
           Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.169: on annotation? (12)

    [5]    From: Jonathan Reeve 
           Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.169: on annotation? (28)

    [6]    From: Susan Ford 
           Subject: RE: [Humanist] 32.169: on annotation? (15)

    [7]    From: federico.caria@live.it
           Subject: R: [Humanist] 32.169: on annotation? (37)

        Date: 2018-11-08 14:07:32+00:00
        From: Wesley Raabe 
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.169: on annotation?


Perhaps see post that I wrote a few years ago, entitled "On Scholarly Annotation," 
https://wraabe.wordpress.com/2015/12/03/on-scholarly-annotation/ . I think it 
has a fairly discerning selection from Anglo-American scholarship on annotation, 
with extended abstracts and some interpretive comments (a few side bars also). 
I refer therein to G. Thomas Tanselle's seminar syllabus, which has a longer list 
from which most of those drawn, https://rarebookschool.org/product/tanselle-editing/ 
(PDF available, p. 19-20). Below are some additions, recent essays.

Rockenberger, Annika. “Editing a Discourse, Not a Text: Meta-Methodological Remarks 
on an Editorial Endeavour.” *Journal of Literary Theory,* vol. 10, no. 2, Aug. 2016, 
pp. 366–82. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1515/jlt-2016-0014.

Epstein, Edmund L. “Cruxes in Ulysses: Notes toward an Edition and Annotation.” 
*Foundational Essays in James Joyce Studies,* edited by Michael Patrick Gillespie 
and Sebastian D. G. Knowles, UP of Florida, 2011, pp. 172–84.

Goldman, Jane. “Who Is Mr. Ramsay? Where Is the Lighthouse?: The Politics and 
Pragmatics of Scholarly Annotation.” *Woolf Editing/Editing Woolf*, edited by Eleanor 
McNees and Sara Veglahn, Clemson University Digital, 2009, pp. 189–95.

Lernout, Geert. “Finnegans Wake: Annotation, Translation, Interpretation.” 
*Text: An Interdisciplinary Annual of Textual Studies,* vol. 16, 2006, pp. 79–86.

Jansohn, Christa. “Annotation as Cultural Activity; or, Re-Constructing the Past f
or the Present.” *Problems of Editing,* edited by Christa Jansohn, Niemeyer, 1999, pp. 211–23.

Some authors are treated as more annotatable than others, Shakespeare, Pope's 
*Dunciad,* Joyce, etc. *Ulysses,* example, has two competing book-length sets, 
one designated the annotations, another the allusions. One may of course branch 
out from annotation into allusion and intertextuality, which creates many complications. 
An example of where I think editors have gone wrong in the popular novel *Uncle 
Tom's Cabin,* is by annotating Eli Whitney's cotton gin by rote, when the interesting 
question in the same paragraph is what George Harris's "machine for the cleaning of the 
hemp" may have signified in its moment. One reason that an obviously needed annotation 
is omitted is that annotation is scholarly folk knowledge (though minor additions to 
notes for canonical authors, Shakespeare, Pope, Joyce, Melville, etc., may become a 
published note and thus "scholarship." Except for unquestionably canonical authors, 
borrowing correct and incorrect notes from previous editions, even without bothering 
to cite source, is considered acceptable. 

Wesley Raabe
Associate Professor and Graduate Coordinator
Department of English, Kent State University 

        Date: 2018-11-08 15:33:37+00:00
        From: vzafrin@bu.edu
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.169: on annotation?

Dear Willard,

My hands down favorite work on the subject is H.J.Jackson's Marginalia: 
Readers Writing in Books. Here's a long-ago review 
of the volume. It has informed how I think about all annotation, digital and otherwise.

I hope that one of the replies to your question will be a pointer to rhetorically 
interesting uses of IIIF annotation, which shows a lot of promise for marginalia both 
deeply engaged, and shareable.

Dr. Vika Zafrin
Digital Scholarship Librarian
Boston University
+1 617.358.6370 | bu.edu/disc

        Date: 2018-11-08 15:35:39+00:00
        From: Katherine Harris 
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.169: on annotation?

Hi Willard,

You might consider consulting the GitHub version of our *Digital Pedagogy
in the Humanities* for Paul Schacht's keyword, "Annotation":

We're in the process of finalizing the entire collection (with building a
new digital platform and going through the copyediting stage), but the
GitHub version is the latest version, thus far. (We anticipate being
finalized in 2019.)

This goes for any of the 60 keywords currently in existence in the Git
repo: https://github.com/curateteaching/digitalpedagogy/tree/master/keywords

Curators/authors author a theoretical definition of the keyword then offer
10 pedagogical pieces with annotation that can be used in many types of
courses. The list of Related Materials at the conclusion of each keyword
offers further reading on the keyword itself. Examples of keywords that
this community might be interested in include: archive, design, digital
divide, failure, gaming, hashtag, hybrid, interface, blogging, multimodal,
network, text analysis, visualization.

All best,

Dr. Katherine D. Harris
Professor, Department of English & Comparative Literature
San Jose State University
Research Blog: http://triproftri.wordpress.com/
Co-Editor, *Digital Pedagogy in the Humanities*

Author,* Forget Me Not: The Rise of the British Literary Annual, 1823-1835*

        Date: 2018-11-08 12:34:59+00:00
        From: Richard Cunningham 
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.169: on annotation?

Hi Willard,

Please share here on Humanist the annotation list your request 



        Date: 2018-11-08 15:29:23+00:00
        From: Jonathan Reeve 
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 32.169: on annotation?

Hi Willard,

On annotation, I'd love to share a couple of resources that may be 
of interest.

The first is "Readers Write: Nineteenth-Century Annotations in 
Copies of the First American Edition of Poe's The Narrative of 
Arthur Gordon Pym," an account of early readers' often-amusing 
reactions in the margins of this hoax-novel. (Some are angry: 
"you, sir, are a liar!") Available in Nineteen Cent Lit, Vol. 55 
No. 3, Dec., 2000; (pp. 399-408) DOI: 10.2307/2903129. 

Another is a [[http://jonreeve.com/projects/annotags/about.html][a 
concept for a decentralized literary annoation protocol]] I 
created a few years ago. The idea is simply to encode book 
identifiers (ISBNs, for instance), and book location information 
(page 64, line 12) in a space-saving base 64 number system, so 
that the resulting code can be used as a hashtag on social media 
platforms. It's technically not reliant on any service, but I made 
a [[http://jonreeve.com/projects/annotags/][javascript calculator 
for these tags here]], as a proof-of-concept, which may or may not 
still work. 


Jonathan Reeve

        Date: 2018-11-08 13:54:05+00:00
        From: Susan Ford 
        Subject: RE: [Humanist] 32.169: on annotation?

Hi Willard

I may not have the same notion of annotation as you (but bringing in the 
running hares) - I think Donald Alcock's books of the 1970s and 80s 
"Illustrating Basic [/ C / Fortran / Pascal]" which not only had hand 
written text but pictures of data structures etc. woven in should make the cut.

(Now I come to think of it, perhaps they should be on your list for *not* 
being annotated since each individual page in all its elements was created 
as a single item by Alcock's hand.)



        Date: 2018-11-08 13:39:17+00:00
        From: federico.caria@live.it
        Subject: R: [Humanist] 32.169: on annotation?

Hi Willard,

last year I conducted a user study on digital annotation, you might find some references 
down here. Marshall (16, 17, 18) is a good starting point.

  1.  Bargeron D. & Moscovich T.: Reflowing digital ink annotations, CHI'03. In Proceedings of the SIGC Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems (eds G. Cockton & P. Korhonen), pp. 385-393. ACM Press, New York, NY, 2003.
  2.  Bruce, Blair, A. 2003. Reading strategies for coping with information overload, ca.1550-1700, in Journal of the History of Ideas 64, no. 1: 11-28.
  3.  Bradley, J.: Towards a richer sense of Digital Annotation in DHQ Digital Humanities Quarterly, Vol. 6 (2012) No. 2.
  4.  Burghardt, M.: Usability Recommendations for Annotation Tools, in Proceedings of the 6th Linguistic Annotation Workshop, pages 104-112, Jeju, Republic of Korea, 12-13 July 2012.
  5.  Bush, V., As we MIght Think, The Atlantic, 1945.
  6.  Caria, F., Mathiak. B.: Hybrid Focus Group for the Evaluation of Digital Scholarly Editions of Literary Authors, in Bleier, Roman and Bürgermeister, Martina and Klug, Helmut W. and Neuber, Frederike and Schneider, Gerlinde and Vogeler, Georg. Digital Scholarly Editions as Interfaces. Schriften des Instituts für Dokumentologie und Editorik, 12. Forthcoming 2018.
  7.  Cooper, A. et al.: About Face 3. The Essential of Interaction Design. Wiley Publishing Inc., Indianapolis (2007).
  8.  Drexel, J. S., Aurifodina artium et scientiarum omnium; excerpendi sollertia, omnibus litterarum amantibus monstrata, Antwerp, 1638.
  9.  Henige, D.: Being Fair to the Hounds: The Function and Practice of Annotation, in History in Africa, Vol. 28 (2001), pp. 95-127.
  10. Hoff, C., Wehling, U., Rothkugel, S.: From paper-and-pen annotations to artefact-based mobile learning, in Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2009), 25, 219-237.
  11. Koohang, Alex. "Expanding the Concept of Usability." Informing Science Journal, vol. 7, 2004, pp. 129-141. [Accessed at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/524f/ 7dc44ca12f79074bd3064ca3887bcb938218.pdf]
  12. Jardine, L., Grafton, A.: "Studied for Action": How Gabriel Harvey Read His Livy, in Past and Present, Volume 0, Issue 129 (Nov. 1990), 30-78.
  13. Kiewra, K. A., The Relationship between Information Processing Ability and Note-Taking, in Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, (1988) 33-44.
  14. Kwakkel, E.: Medieval Books, blog. https://medievalbooks.nl/author/erikkwakkel/
  15. Marshall, C. C.: The Future of Annotation in a Digital (Paper) World). in Proc 35th GSLIS Clinic, Success and Failures of Digital Libraries, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 98.
  16. Marshall, C. C.: Towards an Ecology of Hypertext Annotation. 98.
  17. Marshall, C. C.: Annotation: from paper books to the digital library. in Proc DL 97, Philadelphia, PA (July 23-26, 1997), pp. 131-140.
  18. Myrberg, C. and Wiberg, N.: Screen vs. paper: what is the difference for reading and learning? in Insights 28(2), July 2015.
  19. Mueller, P., Oppenheimer, D.: The pen is mightier than the keyboard. Psychological Science 6(25) pp.1159-1168 (2014).
  20. Nelson, T. Literary Machines. South Bend, Indiana: The Distributors. Edition 87.1. Also 6th Edition, 1984.
  21. Nielsen, Jakob. "Guerrilla HCI: Using Discount Usability Engineering to Penetrate the Intimidation Barrier", 1994. [Accessed at http://www.nngroup.com/articles/guerrilla-hci/].
  22. Pri, Y.: Lecture Active et Annotation de documents. Slide presentation. http://pagesperso.lina.univ-nantes.fr/~prie-y/ens/04-05/MasterRecherche/lecture-active.pdf.
  23. Schacht, P. Annotation, MLA Modern Language Association Journal. https://digitalpedagogy.mla.hcommons.org/keywords/annotation/
  24. Stoop, J., Kreutzer, P., Kircz, J. G.: Reading and learning from screens versus print: a study in changing habits", New Library World, Vol. 114 Iss 9/10  (2013) pp. 371 - 383.
  25. Unsworth, J.: Scholarly Primitives: What Methods do Humanities Researchers Have in Common, and How Might our tools reflect this? part of a symposium on "Humanities Computing: formal methods, experimental practice" sponsored by King's College, London (2000), http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jmu2m/Kings.5-00/primitives.html, last accessed 03/10/2017.
  26. K.B., Cardelli, L., Pierce, B.C.: Comparing Object Encodings. In: Abadi, M., Ito, T. (eds.): Theoretical Aspects of Computer Software. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1281. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1997) 415-438
  27. Van Leeuwen, J. (ed.): Computer Science Today. Recent Trends and Developments. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1000. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1995)
  28. Michalewicz, Z.: Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Programs. 3rd edn. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1996)

Federico Caria

Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted
List posts to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org
Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/
Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php

Editor: Willard McCarty (King's College London, U.K.; Western Sydney University, Australia)
Software designer: Malgosia Askanas (Mind-Crafts)

This site is maintained under a service level agreement by King's Digital Lab.