gabikeane
commented
2 years ago "Modeling recognizes data as constructed, but only by the individual scholar; it does not provide a mechanism to interrogate the history of transmission preced- ing and perpetuated by the scholar’s engagement with the documen- tary record, including in its mass-digitized forms. The framework of the scholarly edition meets that challenge, presenting a structure to negotiate the incomplete and transactional nature of the documentary record and to represent the outcomes of that process" (Bode 38).
In what ways does an API re-introduce a new transactional structure, and if so what value can we create by recognizing it explicitly?
Bode answers immediately: "Adapted to the literary system, it offers a reliable foundation for data-rich literary history and for extending the insights gained from that field’s engage- ment with emerging digital infrastructure to the broader discipline" (38)
"One contribution this book aims to make is to expand and enrich the application of modeling for data-rich literary history by connecting it explicitly to descriptive bibliography" (41).
How does writing an API expand/enrich the application of modeling? Does it merely expose the model, or does it add another layer of knowledge structure? I do think it adds another layer
May be worth revisting Pamphlet II (https://litlab.stanford.edu/LiteraryLabPamphlet2.pdf)
Your to-do
@gabikeane @djbpitt Read part 1 of Kat Bode's A world of fiction. Goal: Should discoverability of API structure and further queries be a priority for our project? Look at what others have done.