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

%\usepackage{amsfonts}

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

%\begin{document}
\section{Introduction}
The purpose of the research is to explore the topic of collaboratories digital libraries and the possibility for the Italian Humanities community to have one, 
perhaps on a wiki software, considering advantages and disadvantages. 
The study concentrate on the Italian context, investigating the topic of collaboration within a community of practice as the Humanities community in Italy. 
Literature searching started therefore from international articles, to understand the state of the art of digital libraries (especially in Italy) with a special focus on 
collaborative projects and technologically advanced digital libraries.

At the beginning of the study, the researcher was more interested in the technological framework of online scholar collaboration: 
therefore literature browsing started in databases like ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, EBSCO. 
The following keywords has been searched: \textit{wiki, digital libraries, collaboratories}, with all possible combinations. 
Then, related terms like \textit{collaboration, e-science, cyberinfrastructure, digital humanities} (and related combinations) were explored as well.  
Dedicated e-journals like D-Lib and First Monday were browsed too.
Unfortunately, and important synonym for cyberinfrastructure projects as VRE (Virtual Research Environment) was discovered during the last interview, 
and could not be exploited for the literature review. 

However, it emerged during the whole research process that different terms were used to indicate similar projects, and they were differently according to the location. 
For example, \textquotedblleft cyberinfrastructure\textquotedblright is a term used mainly in US, when \textquotedblleft e-science\textquotedblright is utilized in UK. 
\textquotedblleft Grid\textquotedblright is another keyword that is referred mainly to \textit{grid technologies} and computing, 
and is used largely in European projects. \textquotedblleft VRE\textquotedblright is then a term indicating single projects of \textquotedblleft e-science\textquotedblright, 
and it can be regarded as a broad synonym of collaboratories (used mostly for STM projects).
Literature review will go deeper in the analysis. 

Documental analysis also included specific web-sites focused on Humanities and Computer Science as Griselda Online\footnote{\url{http://www.griseldaonline.it/}}, 
Informatica umanistica\footnote{\url{http://www.digitalvariants.org/}}, Engramma\footnote{\url{http://www.engramma.it}}. 
Wikipedia has been used as a source only for overviewing topics which were not covered by academic literature, and that often regarded digital culture 
(i.e. technology, net culture, wikis, Wikipedia). 

Research also included cyberinfrastructure and digital humanities projects like Perseus Digital Library\footnote{\url{http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/}}, 
Stoa\footnote{\url{http://www.stoa.org}}, Suda\footnote{\url{http://www.stoa.org/sol/}}, Alpheios\footnote{\url{http://alpheios.net/}}, 
HRIT\footnote{\url{http://ctsdh.luc.edu/?q=node/24}}, TextGrid\footnote{\url{http://www.textgrid.de/}}, that has been very helpful for defining functionalities 
and comprehending the \textit{state of the art} of digital humanities collaborative projects.
Several of the digital libraries and mentioned came up during interviews. 

Focus was on collaboration in digital libraries and general cyberinfrastructure: aside from some historic articles, emphasis was not on STM (\textit{Science, Technology and Medicine}) e-science projects, 
Only literature on digital humanities and humanities collaborative projects has been explored. Wiki projects in science and humanities were searched as well.

\subsection{Italian literature}
Unfortunately, the search of documents and articles in Italian language was almost a total failure. 
Very few articles were found on topic and other few were closely related. 
Almost no bibliography is available on collaborative digital libraries and Digital Humanities collaborative projects.

What is more, searching for English articles regarding the Italian context was unsuccessful too. 
Few articles were found on topic, written by Italian scholars, but they were too technologically oriented and did meet only partly the scope of the present research.
This is quite significant about the state of the art of digital libraries in Italy, and will be discussed in the \texttt{Chapter 5}.  

Digital Humanities do have a long and successful history in Italy: Father Busa, an Italian Jesuit, is one of the pioneer of one of the pioneers in the usage of computers for linguistic and 
literary analysis, which started the first computational lemmatization of the works of of the works of Saint Thomas Aquinas, the \textit{Index Thomisticus}, in 1949.   
He is worldwide considered one of the founders of DH. 

Thus, DH are a field where great successes has been achieved by the Italian community. 
However, in DH the approach of the single scholar remains individual: very few projects can be regarded as collaborative, 
and scholars tend to use digital tools for individual researches.
Interviews and data analysis will highlight much better this cultural aspect of the Humanities Italian community.  

Therefore, the researcher did have to seek for literature in the international context, mainly the English one. 
Due to iterative phases of research process, purposes were tweaked during the first part of the work, so did the scope and the coverage of the review.
Suggestions from \textit{key informants} and from the first interviews gave new and helpful directions for the research, adding important authors and articles to the bibliography. 
For example, a focused and exhaustive bibliography was suggested by Alison Babeu, librarian of Perseus Project.

The following review will be organized in topics and related subtopics, 
following keywords emerged from literature (methodology will be discussed further in the next chapter).

\section{Collaboration}
In a world of ever increasing complexity, brand new issues need brand new answers. Often, what is really needed are brand new approaches to find answers. 
Multidisciplinarity has often become a necessity to cope with entangled questions, multiculturality a default approach for a globalized world.
With the rise of the Web and the so-called Web 2.0, we have seen users of the Net using the ubiquity of the digital world for collaborating in any possible direction, 
from organizing and gathering photos, websites, even books (Flickr\footnote{\url{http://www.flickr.com}}, del.ici.ous\footnote{\url{http://www.del.ici.ous.com}}, 
LibraryThing\footnote{\url{http://www.librarything.com}}, aNobii\footnote{\url{http://www.anobii.com}}) to create entire ecosystem of information with blogs and wikis.

\citeA{shirky2008} provides several examples of new forms of organization through the Web, where auto-organization of normal citizen has lead to projects, 
actions and events unthinkable only few years ago. 
User empowerment is boosting innovation in many fields and giving users a new consciousness of the power of groups, communities and crowds.

Following a similar path, \citeA{surowiecki2004} states that when a group of people reaches \textit{diversity of opinion, independence, decentralization} and \textit{aggregation}, 
it might happen what he calls the \textit{wisdom of the crowds}: the empirical evidence that, statistically, a disorganized crowd can reach goals and answer questions faster and better than single but expert individuals. 
Examples are everywhere: from prediction markets to Delphi methods, to massive collaborative projects as Wikipedia.
%non riesco ad integrare niente qui? ci starebbe qualche parola in più.

\citeA{tapscott2006} enthusiastically state that the world is facing a brand new economics they call \textit{Wikinomics}, 
where \textit{openness, peering, sharing} and \textit{global action} are the new principles.
%pure qui

In this brand new world many projects are bottom up, peer produced, collaborative. Science and scholarship are coping with this new world in many ways, 
discussing issues and proposing solutions regarding \textit{collaboration} (e.g. e-science, e-research), \textit{intellectual property} (e.g. Science Commons), 
\textit{scholarship communication} (e.g. Open Access) and many more. 
The present literature review will focus on collaboration regarding digital libraries for humanities, covering briefly literature regarding e-science and collaboration.

\subsection{E-science, cyberinfrastructure, e-research}
A number of terms are in vogue that describe the transformation of science through utilization of Grid computing, Internet-based instrumentation, 
and global collaboration. \textit{E-science} (standing for "Enhanced science", used mostly in UK) and \textit{cyberinfrastructure} 
(used mostly in US) are probably the most common terms used for describing this transformation in the scientific enterprise \cite{jankowski2007}.
Both terms will be used as synonyms in the present review.  
E-science is associated with \textquotedblleft computationally intensive science carried out in highly distributed network environments\textquotedblright, 
often using \textquotedblleft immense data sets that require \textit{grid computing}; the term sometimes includes technologies that enable distributed collaboration, 
such as the Access Grid.\textquotedblright \cite{escienceWP}. 
It is used for simulations and experiments, especially in disciplines like high-energy physics, earth science, bio-informatics.
A report by the US National Science Foundation, known as the \textit{Atkins Report} (2003) and commonly quoted as a manifesto of e-science, 
introduced the term \textit{cyberinfrastructure} as \textquotedblleft the infrastructure of distributed computer, information and communication technologies\textquotedblright \cite{jankowski2007} 
needed for innovation and the knowledge society.  
\begin{quotation}
If infrastructure is required for an industrial economy, then\dots 
cyberinfrastructure is required for a knowledge economy. | \cite[p. 5]{atkins2003}
\end{quotation}
Though the visionary language and the lack of scholarly concerns, the Atkins report found great resonance: NSF established the Office of Cyberinfrastructure\footnote{http://www.nsf.gov/dir/index.jsp?org=OCI}, suggesting a form of institutionalization.

Another definition states:
\begin{quotation}
Cyberinfrastructure integrates hardware for computing, data and
networks, digitally enabled sensors, observatories and experimental
facilities, and an interoperable suite of software and middleware services
and tools. Investments in interdisciplinary teams and cyberinfrastructure
professionals with expertise in algorithm development, system operations,
and applications development are also essential to exploit the full power
of cyberinfrastructure to create, disseminate, and preserve scientific data,
information, and knowledge.|\cite[p. 7]{nsf2006}
\end{quotation}

Including also humanities and social sciences, \textit{e-research} is also a term often used to extend the original meaning of e-science and cyberinfrastructure.   

Despite the variety of terms, \citeA{jankowski2007} suggest a list of main features of e-science, claiming they \textquotedblleft contribute \textit{added value} to the scientific enterprise, 
when combined\textquotedblright (p. 5):
\begin{enumerate}
\item  International collaboration among researchers;
\item  Increasing use of high-speed interconnected computers, applying Grid architecture;
\item  Visualization of data;
\item  Development of Internet-based tools and procedures;
\item  Construction of virtual organizational structures for conducting research;
\item  Electronic distribution and publication of findings.
\end{enumerate}
%The author, gained a personal experience with \textit{The Virtual Knowledge Studio} research project, also suggest projects not to be totally technology-driven. 

Importance of the features differs for disciplines, but they can be regarded as the core features of e-research and cyberinfrastructure. 
Present research will focus especially on the feature 4 and 5, considering them within the specific field of digital libraries.

Digital libraries are an crucial component of cyberinfrastructure. 
\citeA{atkins2003} introduces them in his famous report with a particular focus on data and information:
\begin{quotation}
An information-driven digital society requires the collection, storage, organization, sharing, and synthesis of huge volumes of widely disparate information 
and the digitization of analog sensor data and information about physical objects. The digital library encompasses these functions, 
and research and development are needed for the infrastructures to mass-manipulate such information on global networks. 
Digital libraries also provide powerful tools for linking and relating different types of information, leading to new knowledge. 
These capabilities require new paradigms for information classification, representation (e.g., standards, protocols, formats, languages), manipulation, and visualization.
\end{quotation}  

Digital libraries provide not only reference and documentation for scholars and researchers, but begin to cope with information stored in \textit{data}.
For librarians employed in research centers and universities, the shift from \textit{libraries of documents} to \textit{libraries of data} is disruptive.
With huge amounts of data, new professionals with both librarianship and computer science skills are needed to cope with increasing complexity.
%(vedi i fogli del rumeno, puoi aggiungere un paio di cose).
The specific topic is broad and will be not covered by the present research: it will suffice to say that librarians need to rethink their roles to cope 
with complex issues of data acquisition, management, storage, preservation \cite{williams2009}.

\subsection{Collaboratories}
While he was working for the US National Science Foundation, William Wulf coined the term \textit{collaboratory}, merging the words \textit{collaboration} and 
\textit{laboratory} \cite{kouzes1996}. 
He defined it as a
\begin{quotation}
center without walls, in which the nation’s researchers can perform their research without regard to geographical location-interacting with colleagues, 
accessing instrumentation, sharing data and computational resource, and accessing information in digital libraries. | \cite{cerf1993}
\end{quotation}

Collaboratories are shared virtual environments providing computing and communication technologies for scientists to access, manage and analyze data, and work collaboratively. 

They are strictly bounded with e-science, because are another form of collaboration. While e-science is global and tries to link and reach different scholars and 
disciplines around the world through digital infrastructure, collaboratories affect a \textit{cluster} \cite{barabasi2002} of researchers of the same field. 
Even though the principle and goal is the same, the \textit{scale} is different. 

\citeA{kouzes1996} explore issues of collaboratories, identifying 4 broad categories of collaboration among researchers:
\begin{itemize}
\item  \textit{peer to peer}
\item  \textit{mentor-student}
\item  \textit{interdisciplinary}
\item  \textit{producer-consumer}
\end{itemize}
Authors suggest that 
\begin{quotation}
although we present these classifications as distinct types, a single collaboration may actually contain elements from several styles [{\dots}]. 
Nevertheless, these categories do help to show the varying communications needs researchers have as they work in different modes and how an individual’s needs may 
change as the task or nature of the collaboration changes. The fact [{\dots}] implies that an electronic collaboratory environment should not impose a particular mode. 
It should instead provide a wide range of capabilities that can be quickly and easily selected and configured for the task at hand. Such flexibility
addresses some of the social barriers inhibiting collaboration. |\cite[p. 43]{kouzes1996}
\end{quotation}

Collaboration is one of the main keyword of the research, and has been questioned during all the interviews conducted. Outcomes and a deeper analysis of the 
term itself will be provided in \texttt{Chapter 4}. 

Thus, \citeA{kouzes1996} provides an analysis of a variety of communications tools, from e-mails to Web-browser synchronization to shared whiteboards.   

Collaboratories are part of e-science: the main difference is the scale of the projects. 
Collaboratories started in early 90's to exploit the digital world for scientific research with small teams, when cyberinfrastructure came later to gather huge resources for computing and data storage.

Using previous features proposed by Jankowsky, both of them have the goals of the
\begin{itemize}
\item Development of Internet-based tools and procedures;
\item Construction of virtual organizational structures for conducting research.
\end{itemize}

Meanwhile, we need to explore the relationship between digital libraries and collaboratories.

\subsection{Digital libraries and collaboratories}
Regarding digital libraries, \citeA{agosti2004} compare two different definitions, the former from computer scientists and the latter from librarians:
\begin{quotation}
Digital Libraries are concerned with the creation and management of information resources, 
the movement of information across global networks and the effective use of this information by a wide range of users. | \cite{neuhold2004}
\end{quotation}

\begin{quotation}
Digital Libraries are organizations that provide the resources, including the specialized stuff, to select, structure, offer intellectual access to, interpret, 
distribute, preserve the integrity of, and ensure the persistence over time of collections of digital works so that they are readily and economically available 
for use by a deﬁned community or set of communities. | (Digital Library Federation, 1998) 
\end{quotation}
Thus authors argue that definitions above share the same common view with Wulf's definition of collaboratory, the view that information resources have to be accessed. So, as digital libraries are part of e-science, they are also part of collaboratories, because participants need to access information to analyze and interpret it. 
Then \cite{agosti2004} list features of digital libraries: 
\begin{itemize}
 \item Authoring/editing
  \begin{itemize}
      \item creation
      \item interpretation 
  \end{itemize}
 \item Management
 \item Access retrieval
 \item Effective use 
\end{itemize}
comparing them with features of collaboratories:
\begin{itemize}
 \item Interaction
  \item Sharing
  \begin{itemize}
     \item data
     \item resources 
  \end{itemize}
     \item  Access
  \begin{itemize}
     \item  instrumentation
     \item  information 
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}

Authors continue their article proposing a system for annotation, arguing a mayor involvement from users and a improvement for learning and interaction with texts. 
Although the proposal is going towards user empowerment, this vision of digital libraries is still quite traditional, thinking of libraries only for the reference 
services and as a documentation access point. Still, vision of digital libraries is generally really traditional, not going far from the paper library model revived 
on a digital environment.

Following \citeA{tammaro2009}, we can define the collaboratory digital library as:
\begin{quotation}
a research library, which is proposed as an infrastructure for scholars within Humanities, 
and which includes the whole cycle of creation, dissemination and use of digital resources 
to support collaborative cognitive processes. 
The management of the collaboratory digital library considers a variety of creative collections
digital and stimulates new relationships with scholars and experts, using the tools of the participatory Web.
\end{quotation}


\subsection{Visions of digital libraries}
Many authors agree with the fact that vision of digital libraries is still anchored to the image of the book and the organization of traditional libraries collections 
(for example Tammaro, 2009; Crane, 2009). 
Many potentialities of digitization are not yet explored (for example, hypertextual digital libraries), ebooks are still paper document-like, 
too often in formats that are proprietary and non editable from users, thus avoiding manipulation of text and annotation. 
As Ted Nelson says, our digital documents are mostly \textquotedblleft paper under glass\textquotedblright \cite{nelson2008}.

Interesting enough, the first pioneer vision of digital libraries were focused in reaching a revolution in the human-information interaction, 
in enhancing human mind: in systems as Vannevar Bush's \textit{memex} or Licklider \textit{procog} computers were prosthesis for \textquotedblleft augmenting human intellect\textquotedblright \cite{engelbart1963}
for gaining a direct and disintermediated human-machine interaction. All these pioneers, from Bush to Nelson, 
followed the idea of building systems that aided humans to think more naturally and fitting human mind, in which (they thought) ideas and concepts come for association, non linearly. 
\citeA{hauben2004} quotes from Bush:
\begin{quotation}
\textquotedblleft With one item in its grasp, [the brain] snaps instantly to the next that is suggested by the association of thoughts\textquotedblright. 
This is \textquotedblleft in accordance with some intricate web of trails carried by the cells of the brain.\textquotedblright | (p. 101[10])
\end{quotation}

The term \textquotedblleft hypertext\textquotedblright, however, was coined only in 1963 by Nelson, inside the amazing, ideal and impossible design of Xanadu. 
Meawhile, in 1960 Licklider published \textit{Man-computer symbiosis} and in 1965 \textit{Libraries of the future}, in which he explored the idea of 
the \textquotedblleft Procog systems\textquotedblright, computers able to answers defined commands that helped users to think and avoid mechanical actions. 
Licklider recalls a personal experience:
\begin{quotation}
Throughout the period I examined, in short, my \textquotedblleft thinking\textquotedblright time was devoted mainly to activities that were 
essentially clerical or mechanical: 
searching, calculating, plotting, transforming, determining the logical or dynamic consequences of a set of assumptions or hypotheses, 
preparing the way for a decision or an insight. 
Moreover, my choices of what to attempt and what not to attempt were determined to an embarrassingly great extent 
by considerations of clerical feasibility, not intellectual capability. | \cite{licklider1960}
\end{quotation}

Thus, computer can help humans save time and resources accomplishing mechanical tasks. Licklider continues:
\begin{quotation}
The information-processing equipment, for its part, will convert hypotheses into testable models and then test the models against data 
(which the human operator may designate roughly and identify as relevant when the computer presents them for his approval). 
The equipment will answer questions. It will simulate the mechanisms and models, carry out the procedures, and display the results to the operator. 
It will transform data, plot graphs (\textquotedblleft cutting the cake\textquotedblright in whatever way the human operator specifies, or in several alternative ways if the human operator is not sure 
what he wants). The equipment will interpolate, extrapolate, and transform. 
It will convert static equations or logical statements into dynamic models so the human operator can examine their behavior. 
In general, it will carry out the routinizable, clerical operations that fill the intervals between decisions. | (p. 7)
\end{quotation}

In 1965, Licklider merged this idea of a \textquotedblleft real-time, cooperative thinking\textquotedblright machine with the concept of library, in \textit{Libraries of the Future}, in 1965. 
Is in this book that he mention and deeply explores the \textit{pro-cognitive utility net}, also labeled \textit{procog}. 
He foresaw a digital library as a learning framework, providing documents and collections, but along with complex tools for information retrieval, data and text mining, 
statistical analysis, printing. Similar to Bush's Memex, the procog was digital and went in the direction of what we call \textit{Artificial Intelligence}. 
Later, he funded the legendary Douglas Englebart’s Knowledge Augmentation Laboratory at the Stanford Research Institute, the place were the computer mouse and the 
ability to interact with documents displayed on a computer screen would be invented; his original idea would never be accomplished, 
but at the same time Internet and personal computing as we know it are germinated from his work.

Douglas Engelbart too explored his whole life the idea of augmenting

Moreover, digital libraries for collaboratories and e-science share the same context, that is the scientific one: for humanities, thinks are quite different, as the interpretation of texts is the core of the discipline. If a library provides tools and services, the library becomes a framework where to study, analyze and experiment. For example, for philologists the text itself is the data, so a library where texts are accessed can be a laboratory. Recursively, the digital library for humanists can be the collaboratory itself. This new digital library must providing services, beyond the texts. Services for text analysis, text mining, annotation. This vision of digital libraries as laboratories has been explored from the beginning, when humanities first met the digital worlds. 

\section{Digital humanities}
Regarding digital humanities projects, \citeA{cunningham2010} cite \citeA{christiansen2004}, confirming the collaborative nature of libraries:
\begin{quotation}
Libraries are collaborative in nature, seeking out relationships with students, encouraging sharing and cooperation. 
\end{quotation}
They thus put this collaborative approach in contrast with the cultural environment of academic faculties, more closed to information sharing and 
collaboration:
\begin{quotation}
In contrast, the culture of faculty has traditionally been \textquotedblleft generally more isolated and proprietary\textquotedblright, and inter-faculty relationships are informal and 
difficult to document (p. 119). Digital humanities projects may be seen as changing this traditional research culture in the humanities, 
and librarians and the research library need to seize this opportunity to foster more collaborative relationships with faculty.
\end{quotation}

Moreover, \citeA{roncaglia2002} provides a list of features of DH:
\begin{itemize}
 \item use of digital tools for ecdotic and philology, particularly aimed to the realization of electronic editions of texts
 \item use of mark-up languages for structure, formal, semantical representation of texts, and attachment of interpretative and descriptive metadata
 \item study of instruments for attachment of multimedial meta-information
 \item reflection on digital documents and its features
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Digital classics}
Inside Humanities, classical philology can claim a long tradition in engagement with the digital environment. 
Father Busa himslef is a member of this community of practice, and several innovative projects has been developed over few generations, such as the Perseus Project. 
Perseus founder, Gregory Crane, reflected for years upon the relationships between classics and the digital environment. 
In \citeA{crane2008}, he recalls a vision of digital libraries and collaboratories very similar to Engelbart's works on intellect augmentation:
\begin{quotation}
The great challenge for the rising generation of scholars is to build a digital infrastructure with which to expand our intellectual range. 
We seek to advance two effects already enabled by the digital infrastructure at hand. 
On the one hand, we are extending the intellectual range of individual scholars, enabling them to pursue topics that require analysis of more primary sources or more 
linguistic materials than was feasible with print. [\dots] 
At the same time, we want to increase the complementary effect and further extend the audiences that the products 
of particular cultures can reach. 
Machine translation is one technology that aims to advance this goal, but even the simple translation-support systems already provided in environments such as 
the Perseus Digital Library have for years made foreign language texts intellectually more accessible to students than print resources alone. | (p. 2) 
\end{quotation}
 
The authors are in fact interested in projects providing \textit{services}, because they are aware of the fact that digital libraries will grow incrementally:
\begin{quotation}
On a practical level, what will happen to print collections, large or small, if large Digital libraries become larger, more accessible and more flexible than any 
university library in history? On a broader level, we are facing a shift that may eclipse the significance of print and approach the impact of writing itself: 
for writing first stored human ideas outside of our brains and print enhanced the effect. 
Digital libraries, where books read one another in however a rudimentary fashion, have already begun to separate intelligence and action from the human brain. | \cite{crane2006}
\end{quotation}

\citeA{crane2009a} actually thinks of a \textquotedblleft million book library\textquotedblright:
\begin{quotation}
What can we do with a million books with the tools now at our disposal and which we could build? What are the research questions 
that emergent huge collections raise for the historians, literary critics, and other humanists who study 
their contents and for the computer and information scientists who develop methods with which to process digital information in general? |(p. 2)
\end{quotation}

Among the potential services and features of this ideal library, the authors suggest:
\begin{quotation}
\textbf{Multitexts}: Scholars have grown accustomed to finding whatever single edition a particular collection has chosen to collect. 
In large digital collections, we can begin to collate and analyze generations of scholarly editions, generating dynamically produced diagrams to illustrate the 
relationships between editions over time. We can begin to see immediately how 
and where each edition varies from every other published edition.

\textbf{Chronologically deeper corpora}: We can locate Greek and Latin passages that appear any where in the library, not just in those publications 
classicists are accustomed to reading. 
We can identify and analyze quotations of earlier authors as these appear embedded in texts of various genres.

\textbf{New forms of textual bibliographic research}: We can automatically identify key words and phrases within scholarship, 
cluster and classify existing publications, generate indices of particular people (e.g., Antonius the triumvirvs. one of the many other figures 
of that name, Salamis on Cyprus vs. the Salamis near Athens). Such searches can go beyond the traditional disciplinary boundaries, 
allowing students of Thucydides, for example, to analyze publications from international relations and political philosophy as well as classics. | (p. 5)
\end{quotation}
 
In fact, infrastructure (in this case, cyberinfrastructure) is becoming more and more important for Humanities and their goals. According to \citeA{crane2009c}:
\begin{quotation}
Infrastructure provides the material instruments whereby we can produce new ideas about the ancient world and enable other human beings to internalize those ideas. 
Infrastructure includes intellectual categories [\dots], material artifacts [\dots], buildings [\dots], organizations [\dots], business models [\dots], 
and social practices [\dots]. | (p. 5)
\end{quotation}

Yet, event in this pioneer discipline cultural barriers are yet to be eliminated, and they seem the most difficult osbtacles. Authors continue:
\begin{quotation}
The greatest barrier that we now face is cultural rather than technological. We have all the tools that we need to rebuild our field, 
but the professional activities of the field, which evolved in the print world, have only begun to adapt to the needs of the digital world in which we live 
— hardly surprising, given the speed of change in the past two decades and the conservatism of the academy. | (p. 7)
\end{quotation}

Moreover, authors confirm the importance of collaboration and openness in cyberinfrastructure:
\begin{quotation}
\textbf{Collaboration}: While the final form of the papers in this collection may be familiar, their production and content reflects a fundamental change 
in scholarly practice: the majority of the papers published here hav e multiple authors, while the single-author papers either report on group projects 
or on general methods whereby classicists can create interoperable data.
\textbf{Open access and Open source production}: All of the scholars who have contributed to this collection depend upon open access and open source production. 
[\dots] In cases where authors are making particular arguments at a particular point in time, open access allows third parties to locate and automatically analyze what 
they hav e produced: search engines such as Google can index and then deliver their arguments to any one online; 
more specialized text mining systems could analyze what has been written to search for trends in scholarship or to apply specialized services designed for classics. | (p. 17) 
\end{quotation}
  

\section{Wiki}
Ward Cunningham, the \textit{wiki} creator, originally defined wiki as \textquotedblleft The simplest online database that could possibly work.\textquotedblright \cite{cunninghamET}

A wiki is a user-editable website that allows the \textquotedblleft easy creation and editing of any number of interlinked web pages via a web browser\textquotedblright, 
using often a simplified markup language \cite{wikipediaWP}.
Wikis are often used to create collaborative websites, for personal note taking, in corporate intranets, and in knowledge management systems.

Cunningham created the first wiki, the \textit{WikiWikiWeb}, in 1995, for the \textit{Portland Pattern Repository}. 
He was in part inspired by Apple's \textit{HyperCard} program, 
which allowed users to create virtual \textquotedblleft card stacks\textquotedblright of information with a host of connections, or links, among the various cards.

HyperCard in turn drew upon the by Bush's \textit{memex}: that machine would allow readers to annotate and create links between articles and books recorded on microfilm. 
\textquotedblleft HyperCard’s 'stacks' implemented a version of Bush’s vision, but the program relied upon the user to create both the text and the links. 
For example, one might take a musical score of a symphony and annotate different sections with different cards linked together.\textquotedblright \cite{britannicaWiki}

Then \citeA{koblas2006} analyzes deeply wikis and their structure, history and usages.

Wiki is a \textit{social software}, software that enhances social interaction, collaboration and information sharing: 
furthermore, it fosters the growth of communities based on user groups activities.

Wikis are tools designed to be driven by user groups and written by more than one author, therefore the communication model is \textit{all-to-all}, 
and not \textit{one-to-all}. 
Unlike blogs, they are structured page by page, and divided by content.   

It is meaningful that the term \textquotedblleft wiki\textquotedblright is referred both to wiki web-sites and to the software frameworks behind them: 
wikis are designed for collaboration and tend to gather a community to populate them. 
Thus, there is a deep link between a wiki and his community: one can't live without the other. 
Interaction between authors, wiki web sites and wiki softwares is so high that often, when we refer to \textquotedblleft a wiki\textquotedblright, we intend a blurred unit of all of them.

The term \textit{wiki} comes from Hawaiian \textquotedblleft wiki wiki\textquotedblright, that means 
\textquotedblleft quick, fast\textquotedblright \cite{cunninghamET}: 
wikis are environments in which is very quick and easy to edit and contribute. 
You click on the \texttt{Edit} button of a page, you change the text, you click on the \texttt{Save} button and your edit is saved. 
The new version of the page is just online and available to everyone, ready for another edit. 
Pages are saved \textit{incrementally}, every version of the same page is saved, readable and restorable directly from the \texttt{History}, 
a special system page that is the archives of all the saved version of a specific wiki page.
Moreover, every edit of a user is saved in a specific log: the system, called \textit{audit trail}, allows the \textit{tracking} of all the contributions and edits of a particular user.
Both these tools (\textit{Pages history} and \textit{Audit trails}) grant the community the possibility to limit errors and vandalism and restore clear version of pages, 
under the principles of \textit{soft security} \cite{meatball2008},
which tends to trust social forces for keep the order in the project. Hard security instead is codified and trust more technology than humans, 
and cannot discriminate errors from attacks, and does not allow discussion and it's not responsible.

\citeA{wagner2004} summarize features of wikis as follows: 
\clearpage
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\label{tab:Wagner}
\caption{Wagner, Wiki Design Principles} 
\begin{tabular}{ll}
%\toprule
\textbf{Principle} & \textbf{Explanation}\\ 
\textit{Open} & If a page is found to be incomplete or poorly organized, \\
& any reader can edit it as he/she sees fit. \\
\textit{Incremental} & Pages can cite other pages, including pages that \\
& have not been written yet. \\
\textit{Organic} & The structure and text content of the site is open \\
& to editing and evolution. \\
\textit{Mundane} & A small number of (irregular) text conventions will provide \\
& access to the most useful (but limited) page markup. \\
\textit{Universal} & The mechanisms of editing and organizing are the same \\
& as those of writing so that any writer is \\
& automatically an editor and organizer. \\ 
\textit{Overt} & The formatted (and printed) output will suggest the input \\
& required to reproduce it. (E.g., location of the page.) \\
\textit{Unified} & Page names will be drawn from a flat space so that \\
& no additional context is required to interpret them. \\
\textit{Precise} & Pages will be titled with sufficient precision \\
& to avoid most name clashes, typically by forming noun phrases. \\
\textit{Tolerant} & Interpretable (even if undesirable) behavior \\
& is preferred to error messages. \\
\textit{Observable} & Activity within the site can be watched and \\
& reviewed by any other visitor to the site. \\
\textit{Convergent} & Duplication can be discouraged or removed \\
& by finding and citing similar or related content. \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

Wikis, therefore, are much more than social softwares. 
They are spaces for social construction of knowledge. \cite[p. 13]{koblas2006}

\begin{description}
\item[Issues]
\end{description}
\begin{itemize}
\item Intellectual property: as previously said, collaboration is easier when licenses are open. Wiki constributors are collectively owner of its content.
\item No authority, bounded with an open and informal peer review, in many different dimensions (grammar, project coherence).
\end{itemize}

Following a summary developed by \citeA[p.7-10]{koblas2006}
\begin{itemize}
 \item \textbf{Pages are accessible by a standard web browser}: this guarantees a maximum of participation and the possibility to collaborate
everywhere and with every system;
 \item \textbf{Easiness of writing}: editing pages is simple like writing using a
common word processor software. The WYSIWYG is guarantee for
users that don’t know or don’t want to use the mark-up language.
 \item \textbf{Easiness of linking}: internal or external links can be made simply,
it permits authors to create a structure from a personal point of view.
 \item \textbf{Real time updating}: the technical time of publishing (table 2.0)
is reduced to a simple passage Edit > Save.
The authors can manage personally the publishing phase
and can immediately correct errors or mistakes.
 \item \textbf{Collective editing}: remains the base concepts of Wiki revolution.
One common document or collection of documents can be created
or edited by many authors.
 \item \textbf{History and tracking}: is always possible to revert to a previous version
and find the authors of each one. This represent a marginal guarantee
on work quality.
  \item \textbf{Visualization of latest version}: is useful to compare near versions
of the same documents and to highlight differences.
 \item \textbf{Changes notifications}: using the RSS (\textit{Really Simple Syndication})
feed is possible to be updated on what happens on the Wiki
and which kind of activities users do.
 \item \textbf{Search and navigation}: is simple to find information
and topics published by other users.
 \item \textbf{Simple permission structure}: there are only three levels of users:
the readers, the editors and the administrators.
\end{itemize}

\subsubsection{Wiki and DL}
\citeA{frumkin2005} suggests uses of Wikis in digital libraries as \textit{virtual reference}, \textit{content management system} and \textit{annotation tool}. 

\citeA{krowne2003}, co-founder of the mathematical peer-produced encyclopedia \textit{PlanetMath.org}\footnote{http://planetmath.org/}, explains present the Noosphere system\footnote{Noosphere, the software that relies behind Planetmath, is a complex and interesting framework similar to a wiki, but technically more defined and advanced: nonetheless, 
for the purpose of the present research, it will be considered along as a wiki because of the high similarity of collaboration procedures and mechanisms involved.} as a "\textit{case study to demonstrate} common based peer production \textit{digital library system design.}"

Krowne introduces the Yochai Benkler's notion of \textit{commons-based peer production}: 
\begin{quotation}
The term \textquotedblleft commons-based peer production\textquotedblright (CBPP) was introduced by Yochai Benkler in his theoretically grounded explanation of a recently recognized Internet-based phenomenon. 
This phenomenon includes the production of the Linux kernel by a worldwide and shifting team of volunteers, as well as web sites like Kuro5hin and Wikipedia. 
The defining characteristic of CBPP is the voluntary and community-regulated production of an intellectual work. Benkler notes that the rise in CBPP is because the Internet lowers certain communication and collaboration barriers, 
allowing CBPP to flourish and to serve as a viable alternative to produce a large and complex intellectual work. 
Eric Raymond also observed (and participated in) CBPP at an earlier time, but called it the \textquotedblleft bazaar model\textquotedblright, 
which he contrasted with the \textquotedblleft cathedral model\textquotedblright of traditional production \cite{raymond1999}. 
In Benkler's economically grounded exposition, the latter would be called \textquotedblleft firm-based production\textquotedblright. 
Benkler also discusses the open market as another vehicle of production, contrasting it with firm-based and ultimately commons-based production.
\end{quotation}

The present definition lead us to the same principles and mechanisms that originates wiki projects as Wikipedia, 
that root in early days of the free software/open source phenomenon. 
The \textquotedblleft bazaar model\textquotedblright, the concept introduced by Eric Raymond in his well-known essay \textquotedblleft The Cathedral and the Bazaar\textquotedblright 
indicates the new way of peer production, when different contributes by different people create content that is often freely available online.
Krowne give also specific motivations for building a digital library the CMPP-based way:

\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\label{tab:Krowne}
\caption{Krowne, Building a DL the CMPP-way} 
\begin{tabular}{ll}
%\toprule
\textbf{Category} & \textbf{Motivations}\\ 
\textit{Philosophical} & Spirit of camaraderie, democracy, altruism; \\
& aversion to hierarchy/command; \\
& rejection of IP regimes; \\
& dislike of mixing money and learning.\\
\textit{Logistical} & Knowledge distributed unevenly and/or widely; \\
& inflexibility of centralized effort;\\
& experts too busy doing work to commit entirely; \\ 
& DL builders not experts.\\ 
\textit{Fiscal} & No or low funding; \\
& inability to provide major coverage using works for hire. \\
\textit{Optimal} & More material; more peer review; \\
& more up-to-date content; \\
& greater involvement of readers/learners; \\
& new treatments.
%\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

%\subsection{Open}

\bibliographystyle{apacite}
\bibliography{literature}

%\end{document}
