An example of something created as an end itself would be something like a painting. Rather, a by-product would be a car, for example.

I think that long-term costs can be reduced if a higher quality product is invested in in the beginning.

This makes sense, as the team would need to know if the project is even possible. On top of that, the team would also need to know how the data would be presented.

Digital history to me is an account of history that is recorded in a digital space/forum. It oftentimes looks at the deeper meanings to historical events both big and small.

I believe that that is the uniqueness of the digital humanities. It doesn't only look at the issue at hand but looks to face the deeper truth to it.

I see how that can be a problem, scholars would probably see digital endeavors as foreign and hence be hesitant to pursue it.

I believe that this is a good way to do digital humanities; since everyone belongs to a community whether they realize it or not. I think that this is an impactful way of doing DH since it will specifically target those involved in the respective communities.

This has been extremely prevalent over the last years with the #BlackLivesMatter movement, and also the #MeToo movement.

I completely agree with this viewpoint. Since getting started in digital humanities I have realized how long it may take to put a project together, and still market your project so that it can help the groups you want to help. In the end, however, I believe that it can be just as impactful as another form of activism.

I also agree here, since many websites do not use 3D maps. But, here I can see why, since many users would not be able to access it properly. I think the globes should be utilized in a setting where the information is to be presented to a small group of people, for example, within a workplace where the necessary plug-in could already be provided on the office's computers.

From what I understand, animated web maps should be used with data that changes over time, so the map can show these changes. It is especially useful if the map is also interactive meaning, in this example, that the user would be able to manipulate the years.

It is very easy to think that everything that is online is better, but in some instances they are not. Maps being online can be a disadvantage if someone has to work offline, or if people in the area do not have a stable access to Internet connection. I do, however, think in most cases that Internet -based maps are better since they ae more durable and easier to access.

I think the reason for this is because open source can be easily replicated and shared by anyone, and to anyone. Since funding bodies are investing their money, they will feel more secure if a proprietary (closed source) solution is used.

What I understand from this is, for example, that since archives may be found on an outdated website, that if the website is "revamped", then those archives will longer be "dark".

In my opinion, archives should focus on more specific subject matter. This allows for easier understandability for other people. I think that by focusing on a smaller collection, that the works will be better documented as opposed to a much larger collection.

This is understandable, since topic modeling is somewhat supposed to make things easier. Having to go through topic modeling for a small batch of work could sometimes prove more work than if you would have done it yourself.

To do topic modeling, you would need to refine the information by removing stopwords etc. Once this is done, data can be modelled through any channel you like even Python.

A topic is a group of related ideas. So, it would consist of words that fall under a certain category. For example, "pants, vest, and t-shirt" would belong to the same topic.

I think this acts like a special website-converter for XML documents. XML documents will not be able to show, though, on the older XSLT namespace.

From my understanding, EAD is used only for archival files, and uses the components mentioned before.

Tags must be correctly spelled and in the right position for them to work. A combination of tags cannot be used. This means that beginning tags cannot be used with empty tags or closing tags.

This is an astonishing fact. This shows that we may sometimes miss out on vital information due to it not being available/easily accessible digitally.

I understand how that can be problematic. It can lead to less sophisticated data since we are not focusing on specific ideas and topics. I do think, however, that it has the potential to be useful since it can provide statistical support to data.

Upon hearing this description, I understand why it is useful to so many industries. It involves the main ideas surrounding a particular topic. In my opinion, it is much easier to dissect big data as there are many routes that can be taken as compared to when analyzing a more specific topic.

This also deals with inadequate data which we have to deal with. Not having data specifications can affect the accuracy of our research.

I understand how it can be difficult to model datasets especially as a novel humanist. There are simply not enough and not enough variety of models to use. This can cause problems as we will not be able to represent the data in a precise way.

I agree, because each person has an individual view and that may affect the way and manner in which data is presented.

I think administrative metadata is the admin side of things, as the name implies. It will be, for example, who a google document was shared with.

From my understanding, this would be like a 'table of contents'. Where the information about the order of information is stored.

An example of this would be the author's name attached to an article.

In my opinion, this is the most important characteristic. I think this way, because without a global interaction when researching and publishing, we end up with a one-sided view that may not represent all people.

I also believe that we need allies. Preservation of work is crucial when doing research, especially groundbreaking and innovative research.

I understand this in a personal way. To me, it means that what/who you are trying to be does not necessarily correlate to how everyone else perceives you.

I relate to this statement so much. When searching for certain articles online, I tend to get prejudicial results that are only vaguely related to what I searched for. The authors of these articles tended to be white, American males. I would normally find the works of authors of color further down the page that speak exactly on what I searched for initially.

This is true throughout all things in life. For example, not having a proper meal at night may simply be a dietary choice for some, while it is an unwilling daily occurrence for others.

I completely agree with this statement. When people see certain things on the media, they normally believe that this behavior/point of view is ok; especially if what they see already lines up with their beliefs and values. They feel security, in a sense that other people think the same as them, and act brazenly as a result.