Dear DH Community and Friends of Literature, I have some questions and I would like to hear your thoughts: What are your thoughts on scholarly digital editions? Is a particular feature that you would to see? What makes a good edition according to your experience? Is it the UX, the features, the visualizations, etc? #dh #digitalhumanities #digital_editions #discussion
Dear DH Community and Friends of Literature, I have some questions and I would like to hear your thoughts: What are your thoughts on scholarly digital editions? Is a particular feature that you would to see? What makes a good edition according to your experience? Is it the UX, the features, the visualizations, etc? #dh #digitalhumanities #digital_editions #discussion @dh @DHd @publicDH
@demigrigo @dh @DHd @publicDH
I like using the RIDE's review criteria as an exhaustive reference: https://ride.i-d-e.de/reviewers/catalogue-criteria-for-reviewing-digital-editions-and-resources/
In my own experience, I'm disappointed if a digital edition publication site doesn't
* Show facsimiles used to create transcripts
* Share its data in a raw format as well as on the publication interface[*]
* Credit the people and tools[**] used to create the edition
* Allow good search and discovery
* Make it easy to cite and link to the project.
[*] It's hard to beat a Github repository full of TEI-XML!
[**] As a tool-maker, I dislike seeing a project I've collaborated with or developed special features for not even mention that tool.