Indeed, an issue that we raised in the LAIRAH report was related to Evan's comment here. How do we decide what gets funded: things that have broad or deep usage? Thus do we allow an informal canon to develop and fund things that have a lot of usage, say on Shakespeare, WWI, Civil Rights etc because these are the subjects that lots of people are interested in and study at school and university? Or do we fund a resource that might have many fewer users who are expert, and who depend on this for their research, and may indeed make deeper and more complex use of it? Perhaps the Whitman Archive is the ideal mid point: it presents resources that are usable by a broad community, but are also important for expert scholarship. I think in future we need to think a great deal more about these issues. Indeed as a result of our work people applying for money from funding bodies for the humanities and cultural heritage are now increasingly asked to discuss possible types and levels of use in their case for support. But I still don't think we have solved the broad vs deep issue.