Hermeneuti.ca – The Rhetoric of Text Analysis

We haver restarted our weekly meetings. Here are my notes:

• We discussed how Hermeneuti.ca, Voyeur, TAPoR and the Methods Commons might interact. No real resolution. It is getting hairy. 
• We discussed what needs to get done to send out a prospectus for review. (See my previous blog.)
• We talked about how quoting tools might work. We think the citation to a tool should say "Voyeur Tools" to make it clear what this is. Is there a standard language? In this context we also talked about 
• I now have a TRAC account so I can enter bugs. 

The push is on now to finish the prospectus. This is what we need to do:

• Finish the chapter on "There's a Toy in my Essay!". We have a draft Intro, Now Analyze That, Voyeur instructions, TOC, prospectus ... we just need one more finished chapter.
• Import the chapters finished in Word back into the Drupal with all the links
• Update the bibliography
• Test the Now Analyze That online
• Fix up the Drupal interface so reviewers can try Hermeneuti.ca
• Fix the page jumping problem when panels load down

I've been moving back and forth between the Drupal and Word when editing and that isn't working too well. I tent to write better in word (habit mostly, but also because I can edit on my 30-inch screen with two pages up and because Track Changes is helpful when working together.) Now we have the problem of how to integrate the chapters back into Hermeneuti.ca?

Can we write a filter?

We ran a workshop/retreat with SSRHC funding on developing a Methods Commons using the Recipes idea. See CIRCA Methods Commons page.

The generalization of recipes raises the issue of how we should handle our recipes. Should we keep them in Hermeneuti.ca or link them to recipes in the Methods Commons?

We need to review how tools are cited and think about how they should be quoted in print. For example, here is how Voyeur recommends I cite the Links panel in the introduction,

Sinclair, Stéfan and Geoffrey Rockwell. “Links.” Voyeur. 6 Sep. 2010 <http://voyeur.hermeneuti.ca/tool/Links/../../tool/Links/>

Sinclair, S. and G. Rockwell (2010). Links. Voyeur. Retrieved September 6, 2010 from http://voyeur.hermeneuti.ca/tool/Links/../../tool/Links/

Some of the things to think about and change:

• Do we want to reference voyeurtools.org rather than voyeur.hermeneuti.ca?
• We should make it clear that it is a tool somehow. We could have "Links Tool." Or we could call Voyeur "Voyeur Tools."
• Do we want an option to be able to quote the tool and text?
• The tool link shouldnt include the final "/../../tool/Links/"

We discussed the London workshop. We will add the following:

• A section on Skins where we talk about the three skins. We would have one cheat sheet for each skin that is an annotated view of the skin followed by a few paragraphs of text.
• A section on panels that is linked to from the panel help.
• One or two introductory recipes tied to a skin.

We will need sample texts for those who don't bring one.

We came up with a cool organizational correspondence between skins and our case studies. We essentially see 3-4 types of text analysis that correspond to different skins (arrangements of tools) for Voyeur.

1. Analyzing one text
2. Comparing two texts
3. Analyzing a small and coherent collection
4. Analyzing lots and lots

Models 1 and 2 correspond to Case 1 (Now Analyze That., Model 3 to Case 2 (Humanist), and Model 4 to Case 3 (Day of DH.)

The introduction needs to be rewritten for this.

It strikes me that an interesting project would recapitulate important text analysis projects. This would try to do the following:

• It would test results of previous projects by recapitulating.
• It would recreate the tools and the research methods - thereby testing them and their representation.
• It might document code in a way that was helpful and lets others use methods/code.

We discussed today whether the word "toy" in the "There's a toy in my essay" conveys the right idea. What are we getting at?

• We want to convey the playfulness of text analysis.
• We want to lead from looking at how graphs work to embedded panels (hermeneuti.ca or toys.)
• We want to argue that embedded panels are more effective because they invite exploration - in other words they are toys. They invite exploration that then leads to discovery of process. The discoveryof process is an alternative to long methodological sections.
• The word "toy" is meant to be provocative. It is meant to confront and provoke a discussion of the place of the exploration and playfulness. I'm hoping that "toy" draws attention to what we think is new - the interactivity of the embedded panels which then invites exploration and engagement.

None the less there are some issues:

• We need to make sure that we return to the "toy" in the essay and explain that at the end. Otherwise we should change the title.
• We need a final section that wraps up the chapter by connecting the problem of rhetoric with our proposed solution.
• Where are we going to discuss the playfulness of interactivity and hermeneutica? Is this the chapter? Do we talk about visualization here?

Reading Smith and Parunak I find myself wondering if we shouldn't try recreating some of their tools. Is there a role for the historical rearticulation (recreation, reanimation, remediation?) of particular tools that were significant. What would it mean to try to reperform things like ARRAS or the distribution graphs that Parunak discusses?

Geoffrey R.