306. Cole-Quill Reconstructing the Secretarys Desk for the ... · Whereas the Comparative...
4
Quill: Reconstructing the Secretary's Desk for the Records of the 1787 Convention Nicholas Cole [email protected] Univeristy of Oxford, United Kingdom Alfie Abdul-Rahman [email protected] Univeristy of Oxford, United Kingdom Grace Mallon [email protected] Univeristy of Oxford, United Kingdom Kate Howarth [email protected] Univeristy of Oxford, United Kingdom Introduction The standard process for negotiating legal and quasi-legal texts over more than two hundred years has been a parliamentary one that (with variations) is still recognizable as the one described in Thomas Jef- ferson’s Manual of Parliamentary Practice (1801) (U.S. Government Publishing Office, 2016; May, 1844). Pro- posals are examined by a series of committees, amend- ments being proposed and voted on throughout this process. Since the late eighteenth-century, many of these negotiations of historical note have left records that record the proposals made and the outcome of de- cisions taken. Such records are difficult to read—es- pecially when they concern any protracted or compli- cated process of negotiation, since it rapidly becomes impossible for a reader to keep track of the state of the documents under discussion. Fully comprehending the records if not read in chronological sequence is im- possible. Building on code written for collaborative docu- ment editing, we have built a sophisticated, web-ac- cessible platform for the study of negotiated texts. We kept the underlying data-model as simple and generic as it could be while modelling the various procedures suggested by a range of Parliamentary Procedure handbooks. We considered the needs of several dis- tinct classes of users — those doing the work of data- capture, those reviewing that work, those wishing to comment on the detail of the text, producing second- ary materials for a variety of audiences, and those wishing to navigate through the material for a variety of purposes. Initial application One such process of negotiation was that which created the United States Constitution. The Records of the 1787 Convention, despite being imperfect and not (initially) intended for public release, in fact enable a detailed reconstruction of the work of the Constitu- tional Convention. These records have been available in various printed forms since 1819 when the official Journal was first printed; these printed records have been digitized as both images and transcribed text (Lilian Goldman Law Library, 2008; Silverbrook and Johnson, 2007; National Archives Catalog, 2016; Li- brary of Congress, 2016). While indexing and search- ing increase the utility of both paper and digitized ver- sions (by allowing readers to discover when particular topics were debated), neither format allows the reader to understand the full context of a particular debate. This is of no small importance, because opinions of participants in the negotiations about particular mat- ters shifted as surrounding questions were answered one way or another. Other digital projects Whereas the Comparative Constitutions Project has pioneered the comparison and display of finished con- stitutional texts (Elkins and Ginsburg, 2005), and some other web projects have attempted to make the text of the United States constitution easier to navigate (Surden, 2015), our project focuses instead on the pro- cess of negotiation. Other projects have attempted to overcome the limitations of the Convention’s records by giving users narrative outlines of the key events in a way that can guide their reading (Lloyd, 2016; Lin- der, 2016; EDSITEment, 2016). More generally, web- sites tracking the progress of Parliamentary debates have focused on milestone moments in the history of texts, rather than letting users track the detail of a doc- ument’s evolution (Parliament, 2016; Tauberer, 2004). Challenges The records relating to formal negotiations are typ- ically a set of minutes that record of proposals and the
Transcript of 306. Cole-Quill Reconstructing the Secretarys Desk for the ... · Whereas the Comparative...
Quill: Reconstructing the Secretary's Desk for the Records of the 1787 Convention [email protected],UnitedKingdomAlfieAbdul-Rahmanalfie.abdulrahman@oerc.ox.ac.ukUniveristyofOxford,UnitedKingdomGraceMallongrace.mallon@univ.ox.ac.ukUniveristyofOxford,UnitedKingdomKateHowarthkate.howarth@pmb.ox.ac.ukUniveristyofOxford,UnitedKingdom
Introduction The standard process for negotiating legal and
quasi-legal texts overmore than two hundred yearshasbeenaparliamentaryonethat(withvariations)isstillrecognizableastheonedescribedinThomasJef-ferson’sManualofParliamentaryPractice(1801)(U.S.GovernmentPublishingOffice,2016;May,1844).Pro-posalsareexaminedbyaseriesofcommittees,amend-mentsbeingproposedandvotedon throughout thisprocess. Since the late eighteenth-century,many ofthesenegotiationsofhistoricalnotehaveleftrecordsthatrecordtheproposalsmadeandtheoutcomeofde-cisionstaken. Suchrecordsaredifficulttoread—es-peciallywhentheyconcernanyprotractedorcompli-catedprocessofnegotiation,sinceitrapidlybecomesimpossibleforareadertokeeptrackofthestateofthedocuments under discussion. Fully comprehendingtherecordsifnotreadinchronologicalsequenceisim-possible.
Building on code written for collaborative docu-ment editing,we have built a sophisticated,web-ac-cessibleplatformforthestudyofnegotiatedtexts.Wekepttheunderlyingdata-modelassimpleandgenericasitcouldbewhilemodellingthevariousproceduressuggested by a range of Parliamentary Procedure
handbooks. Weconsideredtheneedsofseveraldis-tinctclassesofusers—thosedoingtheworkofdata-capture, thosereviewingthatwork,thosewishingtocommentonthedetailofthetext,producingsecond-ary materials for a variety of audiences, and thosewishingtonavigatethroughthematerialforavarietyofpurposes.
Initial application One such process of negotiation was that whichcreatedtheUnitedStatesConstitution.TheRecordsofthe1787Convention,despitebeingimperfectandnot(initially)intendedforpublicrelease,infactenableadetailed reconstruction of thework of the Constitu-tionalConvention.Theserecordshavebeenavailableinvariousprintedformssince1819whentheofficialJournalwas firstprinted; theseprintedrecordshavebeen digitized as both images and transcribed text(LilianGoldmanLawLibrary, 2008; Silverbrook andJohnson, 2007; National Archives Catalog, 2016; Li-braryofCongress,2016).Whileindexingandsearch-ingincreasetheutilityofbothpaperanddigitizedver-sions(byallowingreaderstodiscoverwhenparticulartopicsweredebated),neitherformatallowsthereadertounderstandthe fullcontextofaparticulardebate.This is of no small importance, because opinions ofparticipantsinthenegotiationsaboutparticularmat-tersshiftedassurroundingquestionswereansweredonewayoranother. Other digital projects
WhereastheComparativeConstitutionsProjecthaspioneeredthecomparisonanddisplayoffinishedcon-stitutional texts (Elkins and Ginsburg, 2005), andsomeotherwebprojectshaveattemptedtomakethetextoftheUnitedStatesconstitutioneasiertonavigate(Surden,2015),ourprojectfocusesinsteadonthepro-cessofnegotiation.OtherprojectshaveattemptedtoovercomethelimitationsoftheConvention’srecordsbygivingusersnarrativeoutlinesofthekeyeventsinawaythatcanguidetheirreading(Lloyd,2016;Lin-der,2016;EDSITEment,2016).Moregenerally,web-sites tracking theprogressofParliamentarydebateshavefocusedonmilestonemomentsinthehistoryoftexts,ratherthanlettinguserstrackthedetailofadoc-ument’s evolution (Parliament, 2016; Tauberer,2004).
Challenges Therecordsrelatingtoformalnegotiationsaretyp-
icallyasetofminutesthatrecordofproposalsandthe
votestakenuponthem.Theprincipalaimofthosere-cordingtheminutesistofacilitatetherecord-keepingprocessnecessaryduringtheworkofcommittees,notto provide later readerswith an easyway to recon-structanyparticularmoment. Each formalproposaltoamendadocumenthasatleasttwocontextsthatarerelevant to readers—whatdoes thedocument looklikewhentheamendmentisproposed?whatdoesthedocumentlooklikewhentheamendmentisapprovedor rejected? Due to the nature of committee work,thesecontextsmaydiffersignificantly.Makingsenseof these records, therefore, poses a significantmemory-burdenonreaders.Detailedandspecificdis-cussionof issuespresentedbytheserecords isham-peredbytheneedforauthorstoprovidetheirownre-constructionofelementsofthisprocess,presentedinanarrativeformthatisnecessarilypartialandcanit-selfbecomedifficultforreaderstofollow.
Thisproblemmighthavebeenpartiallyaddressedusingcreativere-purposingofeitherversion-controlsystems designed for computer-science applications(suchasthetoolsrcs(GNU,2013),git(SoftwareFree-dom Conservancy, 2016), or mercurial (Mercurial,2016))orelsethecreationofalayeredXHTMLdocu-ment (TheUniversity ofVirginiaPress,2009).How-ever,werejectedthesesolutionsasbeingeitherinca-pableoffullycapturingthenatureofthesourcemate-rialorelseaslikelytoresultinafragileplatformthatwouldhavebeentoomuchtied to thespecificdocu-ments andunsuitable formore general applications.Sincefutureworkwillcomparedifferentnegotiations,amoregenericplatformthatcouldworkwithavarietyofsourceswithminimalnewcodingwasrequired.
Our solution Quill is anewlydevelopedplatform for the study
andpresentationofformalnegotiations.Itwasdevel-opedinitiallywithaviewtopresentingtherecordsofthe1787FederalConventionthatcreatedtheConsti-tutionof theUnitedStates,butwasdesignedtobeagenericplatformapplicabletoawiderangeofmateri-als, including the creation of constitutions, treaties,and legislation. The model captures formal negotia-tions— that is thosewhere there is a procedure ofconsidering and deciding upon discrete suggestionsforthewordingofdocuments,andwhereminutescap-turingthesedeliberationshavebeentaken.
Aninnovationwastopresentnotmerelytherecon-structionitselfbuttointegrateapublishingplatformthatwould allowauthors topresent their own com-mentary on thematerial in a way that would allow
analysis to be presented alongside specific eventswithinthetimeline.
Links torelevantmaterialheldonotherwebsites(forexample,imagesoftheoriginalmanuscripts)aresimilarly presented to userswhere relevant. In thisway, the website integrates with existing materials,enhancingtheirvalueaswellasitsownandavoidingduplicationofeffort.Weencouragesuchco-operationwithotherprojects throughmachine-readable inter-faces,aflexiblepermissionssystemandasystemofre-sourcecollectionsthatallowthird-partiestomanagelinkstotheirownassetsandcontrolhowtheyappearwithinourplatform.
Forthe2016releasewereliedonthe1911editionoftheConventionRecordspublishedbyFarrand,eventhoughweknowthesetobeimperfecttranscriptionsofthesurvivingmanuscripts.Thischoiceallowedustofocusonthedevelopmentofthesoftwareplatform.TheQuill Platform is capable of presentingdifferentversionsofthesameevent,andfutureworkusingtheoriginal manuscripts will refine our presentation oftherecords.
Supporting information-seeking and exploration
Negotiations of this type are extremely complexandassistinguserstoaccesstheinformationtheyre-quireisachallenge.Inourpublicinterfaces,wehaveguideduserstoaccessmaterialinseveralways.Toac-climatizeuserstotheideaofnavigatingthehistoryofanevolving text,wepresentaSecretary’sDesk view,whichallowsuserstonavigatethestateofdocumentsastheyexistedat theendofeachcommitteesession(seeFigure1).
Figure 1: The Secretary’s Desk for the Committee of the
Whole on the 30 May 1787
Thisviewhidesmuchofthecomplexityofthene-gotiations,butallowsnewuserstoquicklygrasptheconceptofourreconstruction.Wealsopresentvisual-izationsthatallowuserstoexplorethestructureofne-gotiations through a variety of tree-diagrams (Her-man, et al. 2000) (see Figure 2) and sunburst-style(Stasko,etal.2000)visualizations.
Theroleofindividualsandspecificdelegations,aswellasvotingpatterns,arepresentedinseparatevis-ualizations. Alloftheseviewsguideuserswhoneedmoredetaildowntoviewsthatpresenttheworkofin-dividualcommitteesessionsmomentbymoment.Us-ers looking for information on a specific topic areguided towardsasearch tool. Inaddition,userscanalso navigate the platform through a variety of re-sourceandcommentarycollections,makingitpossibletoprovideuserswithamoreguidedexperience.
Conclusions and future work The process of negotiating the constitution was
complicated(wehavemodelledcloseto4,000discreteevents),andourpresentationtranscendsthepossibil-itiesofnarrativeaccountswhilemakingaccesstoandintelligibilityoftheextantsourcesmuchquickerand
ofgreaterutilityforabroadrangeofusers.Themodelsystemitselfiscontent-agnosticandcouldbeusedtomodelawiderangeofsimilarprocesses.Futureworkwill continue to enhance the user experience boththroughrefinementofthevisualizationsanduserin-terface,andthroughthecreationofguidedviewsintothematerialincollaborationwithothers,aswellasex-pandingtherangeofmaterial.
Wider public engagement and education is a keyaim of this project. We are collaboratingwith non-profit organizations in the United States to developguided views suitable for classroom use and inte-gratedintoexistingcurriculummaterials.
Figure 2: An Activity View showing the work of the whole
1787 Convention showing the hierarchical relationship be-tween events, documents, and committees
Bibliography
EDSITEment, (2016). The Constitutional Convention of1787.Availableathttps://edsitement.neh.gov/curricu-lum-unit/constitutional-convention-1787. Date last ac-cessed:1Nov2016.
Elkins,Z.andGinsburg,T.(2005).ComparativeConstitu-
tions Project. Available at http://comparativeconstitu-tionsproject.org/.Datelastaccessed:1Nov2016.
GNU, (2013). GNU RCS. Available at
http://www.gnu.org/software/rcs/rcs.html. Date lastaccessed:1Nov2016.
Herman, I., Melançon, G., and Marshall, M. S. (2000).
“GraphVisualizationandNavigationinInformationVis-ualization:ASurvey”.IEEETransactionsonVisualizationandComputerGraphics,6(1),pp.24-43.
Library of Congress, (2016). Part of: JamesMadison Pa-
pers, 1723-1859. Available athttps://www.loc.gov/search/?fa=partof:james+madi-
son+papers,+1723-1859:++subseries+5e,+madi-son%27s+original+notes+on+debates+in+the+fed-eral+constitutional+convention,+1787. Date last ac-cessed:1Nov2016.
LilianGoldmanLawLibrary,(2008).NotesontheDebates
in the Federal Convention. Available at http://ava-lon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp. Date lastaccessed:1Nov2016.
Linder, D. (2016). The Constitutional Convention 1787.
Available at law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/Ftri-als/conlaw/convention1787.html.Datelastaccessed:1Nov2016.
Lloyd,G.(2016).TheConstitutionalConvention.Available
at teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/themes/.Datelastaccessed:1Nov2016.
May,T.E.(1844).“ATreatiseupontheLaw,Privileges,Pro-
ceedingsandUsageofParliament”.CharlesKnight&Co.,London,UnitedKingdom.
Mercurial, (2016). Mercurial. Available at:
https://www.mercurial-scm.org. Date last accessed: 1Nov2016.
NationalArchivesCatalog,(2016).JournaloftheFederal
Convention. Available at https://catalog.ar-chives.gov/id/7347105.Datelastaccessed:1Nov2016.
Parliament,(2016).BillsbeforeParliament2016-17.Avail-
ableathttp://services.parliament.uk/bills/.Datelastac-cessed:1Nov2016.
Silverbrook,J.andJohnson,M,(2007).ConSource.Availa-
bleathttp://www.consource.org/.Datelastaccessed:1Nov2016.
SoftwareFreedomConservancy,(2016).Git.Availableat
https://git-scm.com.Datelastaccessed:1Nov2016.Stasko,J.,Catrambone,R.,Guzdial,M.,andMcDonald,K.
(2000).“AnEvaluationofSpace-fillingInformationVisu-alizations forDepictingHierarchical Structures”. Inter-national JournalofHuman-ComputerStudies,53(5),pp.663-694.
Surden,H. (2015).ConstitutionExplorer(Beta).Available
at http://www.harrysurden.com/projects/visual/US-Code_D3/constitution/US_Constitution_Tree.html. Datelastaccessed:1Nov2016.
Tauberer, J. (2004). Bills and Resolutions. Available at
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/.Date lastac-cessed:1Nov2016.
The University of Virginia Press, (2009). Herman Mel-ville’sTypee:AFluid-TextEdition.Availableathttp://ro-tunda.upress.virginia.edu/melville/default.xqy. Datelastaccessed:1Nov2016.
U.S.GovernmentPublishingOffice, (2016).HouseRules
and Manual. Available athttps://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.ac-tion?collectionCode=HMAN. Date last accessed: 1 Nov2016.
