LSA Annual Meeting Albuquerque 2006

[Jeff Good]

Heidi and all,

> But only if he's going to be fair-minded about the whole mini-disc
> thing. We can't pry them out of people's hands around here, so we
> have to come up with an appropriate path for their use. Also,
> digitizing at 96Khz is excessive for speech, imho and many others...

This is a good point, and an essential one. We want to make sure all
speakers are aware that we want these talks to be practical. They have to
address all facets of a documentary linguist's needs, including access to
batteries, ease of use in tough conditions, etc. I don't think any of us
want these talks to be of a kind most of us have heard: "So, you've told
me all about Best Practice, but you still didn't me tell what I needed to
know for my own situation because I can't do what you just described."

This should be part of "instructions for speakers" or something.

> > 3. Video formats (no idea on a speaker--someone from DoBeS?)
> > 4. Video recording (no idea--but maybe someone from DoBeS?)
> Definitely someone from DOBES! Or, maybe this would be good place for
> a UNM person to step in. People who study sign tend to use a lot
> of video. And/or, the Wilcoxes might know someone in their Communications
> dept who is good at low-tech video-recording.

Okay--so, let's initially try to give one of these topics to a DoBeS
person and another to a UNM sign language person, if possible. I think
DoBeS knows about both, but they seem to know more about formats of all
kinds than anybody. So, maybe we should try to see if they'll talk about
that. And, then a UNM sign languages person can talk about good filming
techniques. If there is no such person, we can try to hit up DoBeS for two
talks. The notebook I looked through showed they already have the slides
for some of these things!

We'll wait for Gary to hear back from Melissa. If that goes well, we can
look for a UNM video person.

> > 5. IPR and Ethics in audio and video
> I really think we should skip this topic, and skip the funding topic, and
> give more time to the technology and methods. We don't have to say
> everything every time.

Okay. Skipped in 2006.

> > 6. Audio, video, and metadata (including, hopefully, discussion of OLAC
> > metadata for audio and video? What shape is it in? Heidi, would you be
> > appropriate for this?)
> Nick Thieberger would be better, but heck - metadata is metadata! I could
> put together a form and/or Shoebox template and/or spreadsheet thingie with
> the OLAC fields.

Well, we can ask Nick, of course. Presumably, he'll be in a similar
situation this year as last year--i.e., won't be sure of funding for a
while. So, let's ask him, and you can fill in in case that doesn't
work. (My feeling, here, is, the more the merrier, and, since you'll be there
anyway, Heidi, might as well see if we can get Nick there, too. I don't
mean this as any aspersion on your metadata tutorializing skills!)

> > 7. Audio, video, and genres (what should be recorded in audio, what should
> > be recorded in video, are some genres more suited to one or the other? I
> > don't have any good ideas for speakers)
> An ethnographer, maybe? If we do this, it would be a good place to say
> "And you can also record the speaker's statement of consent."

Yes, this seems like it might be best for an ethnographer (or, perhaps, an
anthropologist?). Does anyone know someone who might work who would either
be local to Albuquerque or wouldn't mind hanging out with a bunch of
linguists and paying their own way?

> This is more about how the recordings are annotated than about the
> recording process itself. Maybe we should end with a spiel about software
> for transcription & annotation?

Yes--that would be a good idea. This might be a job from someone at the
ELAR at SOAS, perhaps? They must be surveying this sort of thing. DoBeS,
perhaps, could also do this, but I don't know if they'd be prepared to
talk about software that's not their own.

> > We had nine presentations last year--so, I'll stop with this.
> Yeah, but they were too short to be very substantive. I would vote for
> longer presentations that go into more detail.

Without IPR, we have eight categories. I'm guessing one of these will fall
through for one reason or other. So, we could aim for these eight and
assume we'll wind up with seven. Or, we could aim for seven and hope we
wind up with six. Any thoughts? If we aim for seven, which one should we
cut?

> That would be extremely nice. We'd need funds for registration, travel,
> room & board. Where would we get it? We'd have to apply soon...

If anyone has any ideas about this, please let us know! I'll send an
e-mail to Leanne Hinton to see if Breath of Life has had any experience
with this. It seems roughly similar.

Jeff