26 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2014
    1. mobile device

      is it also worth mentioning that some network graph controls are (currently) unavailable on touch screen devices?

    2. showing

      shows? (otherwise not a sentence)

    3. the project drew on the addressee information from letters that are currently sealed

      Not quite accurate - we don't have letter-by-letter addressee information, but are relying instead on the summary the processing archivists created. There's still a point to be made here... We're relying on the existence of letters rather than thinking about and digging into the content of the correspondence. So the fact that the letters are sealed isn't a blocker to this approach.

    4. difficult simply from archival research

      maybe here we emphasize the strength of automation? what we did would be possible through other means - just really tedious

    1. hypothes.is won't let me annotate the text in the help modal window, so I'll make notes here.

      turn the labels on or off, making it easier which may make it easier ?

      you can hover over wording a bit awkward; user isn't hovering; hover your mouse over? (wonder if there is standard language for this we can borrow?)

      degree/betweenness/centrality - can we bold these instead of putting them in quotes?

    1. The final step of the project was the drafting of the site’s text, including analyses of what was learned from the visualizations.

      do we want to revise this at all? (do we think this is still accurate?)

    2. RDF

      we could say "linked data" or "linked open data" - slightly less technical and jargony than RDF, which is an implementation detail

    3. Emory Finding Aids

      add a link to findingaids.library.emory.edu ? or do we have one elsewhere?

    4. EAD and TEI

      links to the websites for these standards?

    5. take provide

      one of these words is extra

    6. more letters

      this seems like a fine example but we're not actually using the volume or count of letters in our data (because we don't have access to that information)

    7. large

      was this supposed to be larger? otherwise it could probably be removed

    8. each

      not quite accurate - the finding aids describe generally who the the correspondence is to; I'm not sure they have this level of detail on the specific letters for any of the restricted content

    9. dedications of the works

      If you mean poem dedications/titles like "to Derek Mahon", there really aren't very many of those. Perhaps we can generalize a bit more here?

    10. have

      redundant word?

    11. including Pat (SGML), Tamino (XML), and eXist (XML). The encoding has been migrated from TEI version P3 (SGML) to P4 (XML) and currently, P5.

      should any of these technologies (TEI, eXist) be linked?

    12. Many of these drafts were held by Special Collections as typescripts or “Group sheets.

      "held ... as typescripts" seems like odd phrasing. Perhaps: "Many of these typescripts, known as "Group sheets" were/are held ... "?

    13. Special Collections Department

      should we add a comment, now MARBL? e.g. "Special Collections Department (now Manuscript, Archives....)" I see now we have a comment like that later, in the next section...

    14. theManuscript

      missing space?

    15. Seamus Heaney, Philip Hobsbaum, Michael Longley, Paul Muldoon, James Simmons, Ciaran Carson

      I know these names were already linked above, but should we go ahead and link them again?

    16. Michael Allen

      we should make sure to address somewhere why we don't have a profile for Michael Allen and why he doesn't show up in our network graphs

    17. Arthur Terry

      should we have a profile for Terry?

    1. wording - relationships around the group also seems a little odd. among the members of the group?

    2. measuring

      measuring seems weird/inaccurate. diagramming maybe?