%\documentclass[a4paper,12pt]{article}
%\usepackage[english]{babel}
%\usepackage{apacite}
%\usepackage{url}
%\usepackage{graphicx}
%\usepackage{tabularx}
%\usepackage{booktabs}

%\linespread{1.3} % interlinea 1.5

%\usepackage{cite} da non usare, mette le parentesi quadre

%\author{Andrea Zanni}
%\date{2010-04-12}

%\begin{document}

Answer to the third research question, is both yes and no. It is positive intending wiki as a synonym of collaborative editing, a strong form of collaboration 
that could really enhance research in Humanities. It is no intending wiki as softwares: scholars and researchers demand more complex and modular systems able 
to support Semantice Web technologies and with a strong attention to metadata and protocols as OAI-PMH. Nowadays this is not available for most wiki engines, 
that focus more on other features than these technical and sectorial ones.


\section{Collaboration is good}
It comes out clearly that collaboration can be a huge opportunity for Humanities, following the cyberinfrastructure trend of hard sciences.
The creation of collaborative digital environments could have different advantages:
\begin{itemize}
 \item lower costs
 \item enhance collaboration between
 \begin{itemize}
  \item different subdisciplines within Humanities
  \item different fields of sciences
  \item scholars, professors, students
 \end{itemize}
 \item foster innovation within a creative and rich environment
 \item innovate a traditional field as Humanities in the Italian context
\end{itemize}



\section{Solving the Authorship problem}
Issues related to authoriality and authorship can be divided in the following subissues:

\begin{quotation}
Many scholars, particularly in the humanities, are often only used to working independently. 
Another difficulty with collaboration can be clear roles and responsibilities in terms of Authorship. If several humanities scholars work together on a collaborative 
digital project that both wish to use for promotion and tenure, not having clear levels of responsibility can be challenging.
\end{quotation}

Interviewee I5 stated:
\begin{quotation}
We need to state again that, so far, in humanities, work has been primarily individual. 
There is the \textit{myth of the lonely scholar}, as they say in the Anglo-Saxon area. At the same time, there is the \textit{myth of the lonely author}. 
It is a romantic idea, where the author, the scholar, is always working alone: this is still true.
When you make a research in hard science, it is often a collaborative team work. 
In humanities you use need to go in a library, in an archive, in your \textit{scriptorium} and write until you have finished you work.
How much Digital Humanities have changed this behavior and culture needs still to be assessed.
\end{quotation}

\begin{quotation}
Hence, on one side,in the humanities, we have the individual work.
In philological sciences, in particular, there is one thing not to be underestimated: 
We read an edition of a particular curator or publisher because we know that he is an international expert.
I can read the Petrocchi's critical edition of Dante over another because I prefer, I respect, I trust more that curator or publisher.
In humanities and philological sciences the author, the scholar is king.
\end{quotation}


\section{A Collaboratory Digital Library model}

\begin{figure}[h!]
 \centering
 \includegraphics[bb=0 0 290 292,keepaspectratio=true]{./Cipolla.eps}
 % Cipolla.eps: 0x0 pixel, 300dpi, 0.00x0.00 cm, bb=0 0 390 392
 \caption{Collaboratory Digital Library model}
 \label{fig:CDLM}
\end{figure}

Finally, all data gathered suggest that a collaboratory digital library is possible, but it needs to be structured in \textit{layers}.
Not all tasks and tools are meant to be social, or at least not all of them can be based on collaborative editing. 
Interviewee I3 said:

For example, a tool for statistical analysis of a text would be used individually by single researcher: nonetheless, it could store results in a common database and 
could be developed in a open source way by the very same community. 

Every layer represents a different service or feature, with its own level of collaboration. 
Creating a hierarchy of feature discriminating them by the level of sharing and collaboration is the main result of the present study. 
The researchers discussed largely with interviewees about collaboration and specifically collaboration in humanities, concluding
that only discriminating different actions and activities could be the key of engaging humanists in collaborative projects. 
Each layer can exists indipendently from the other.

\section{Wiki}
As mentioned several times, collaborative editing was intended from the beginning as the core of a strong collaborative project.
Interviews did assess the same vision. 


\section{Open}
There is a deep connection between collaboration and sharing. 
It is beyond the scope of the present research to investigate these connections:
however, it must be emphasized that 






-------------------------------------


come risolvere certi problemi legati alla collaborazione e all'authorship. 

Il fatto che la collaborazione aiuta a diminuire i costi. 

Il fatto che la collaborazione va studiata più a fondo, 
per capire i meccanismi interni alle varie comunità, 
e correlare vari tipi di collaborazione a varie funzionalità/azioni singole. 

Neutralization process, è importante! anche nell'analisi, anzi forse solo lì. 

La mappa è il mio theoretical o cenceptual framework? tutti e due, nessuno?
 

%questi li metterei nelle conclusioni, come raccomandazioni, fra le quali dico che la politica e le istituzioni possono fare molto
Obstacles are correlated but they occur at different layers. 
Institutional
cultural


Nonetheless, interviewee I3 did highlight the importance of scholar and scientific social network as a framework for collaboration: 
\begin{quotation}
Quindi quello che servirebbe, anche se uno finisce per trattarli con strumenti propri, sono strumenti teorici comuni. 
E questo più che una collaborazione diretta nell'ambito di una biblioteca digitale, è invece nell'ambito di un social networking di ricerca. 
Quello che secondo me manca molto in Italia è proprio questo. 
Un progetto è per esempio Academia (http://academia.edu), che prova a riprodurre social networks come Facebook ma orientate alla ricerca. 
Sono due o tre gli esempi di questo genere: non è ancora molto sviluppato, e secondo me servirebbe molto per collaborare insieme. 
In un certo senso si poterbbe fare anche su Facebook, se permettesse una tipizzazione dei contenuti. 
E' tutto un unico calderone di contenuti: li puoi filtrare per persone ma non per contenuti, e questo è un gran peccato. 
Se avessi un layer su Facebook che desse "contatti" e "contenuti di quei contatti che riguardano la ricerca", sarebbe magnifico.

Questo è quello che serve, secondo me, quasi prima che uno possa pensare di collaborare sulle digital libraries. 
Serve a stabilire delle relazioni, viene prima. 
Nell'ambito delle DL le idee sono molto belle, ma forse richiedono dei prerequisiti che noi non abbiamo ancora. 
Primo, in Italia non abbiamo la biblioteca digitale, che è essenziale (ride, ndR.) 
E non abbiamo una comunità di ricerca che si sia abituata di costruire un social network di ricerca. 
\end{quotation}



%\end{document}