Our charge:

To boldly choose the best facets of a cyberinfrastructure from various fields, not necessarily choosing a specific field or tool to copy. Categories of these facets include:

1. Data handling practices
   
2. Collaborative/organizational structure
3. Internet technology and tools

Data handling practices

• no central data store
  
• appropriate conceptualizations of the field
• flexible visualization of data
  
• open data (but sensitive to access restrictions)
• easy to cite (DOIs, URIs)
  

Collaborative/organizational structure

collaborative modularity: tailoring data for a certain project is not the best model for collaborative data. Instead, keep the overall idea of data sharing in mind when projects are planned.

Technology

Internet trends and practices

• Linked Data (use of URIs and RDF)
  
• Cloud computing (infrastructure as service)
  
• Web Services
  

Sources of inspiration (pieces of software)

• Pangaea (repository and citation, cf. OLAC)
• FreeBase (open, free community model, cf. GOLDComm)
• Nanohub (educational materials portal, cf. LinguistList)
• OpenWetWare (info and practices site, cf. glottopedia)
• ManyEyes (visualization of data, cf. MultiTree)
  

Open questions:

existing repositories (e.g., for field data)

Should we use currently available tool and infrastructure, or build our own linguistics-specific CI?

Is it possible/desirable to organize ourselves as a field (or part of a federation of fields) to achieve a kind of infrastructure we see in other fields?

Synergy between theory and application: e.g., interaction among linguists as a field with military, industry, etc. who are interested in data for other reasons.