- gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

Scholarly use of PG
by David Newman 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

As a credentialed conflict avoider, I've been loathe to stick my head into this fray. Indeed, this battle about meeting the needs of academia appears to be waged at times with an ideological fervor to rival that of the recent US election. It seems to me that the fervency with which people approach this issue has made it difficult in some cases for the arguments to follow a path towards resolution. It is perhaps also complicated by the wide assortment of changes being proposed to remedy the perceived problems. Some arguments for change suggest that PG should direct its energies towards making its library suitable for scholars by including more information in the files, particularly pagination and provenance, presumably packaged with XML. I have no problem with including such information. However, I don't think it should be required of all texts, nor do I believe that it really solves the scholarship issue. Including page scans _would_, to the degree that a solution is possible, and requires approximately 0% extra work for most of our valiant volunteers. And, PG has made it clear that this is acceptable, and has already done so for some projects. I feel that Marcello gave the most persuasive and concise summary of the situation, and I didn't notice any overt disagreement. Marcello Perathoner wrote: >The best value for Academia (and the least work for us) would be just to >include the page scans. Any transcription you make will fall short of >the requirements of some scholar. I think we should use our time for >producing more books for a general audience instead than producing >Academia-certified editions of them. HSH's comments justify such an approach. Her Serene Highness wrote: >I need to know EXACTLY when the original >was published, who published it, and where, since there are variant texts >out there. Even a single word change that might have occurred in the >copying process could change the meaning of a vital sentence. Of course, there is a simple, if unsatisfactory, answer to all these questions for PG texts: they were published by PG, on the PG website, and each file states when it was published. Each work we publish is the "PG variant" of that text. As an academic, I find it dishonest and unhelpful for a scholar to cite a physical volume when the volume they consulted is an electronic edition. It is virtually impossible to guarantee that "even a single word change" was not introduced in the transcription process. Even with DP's careful processes, I would not wager that most of our books enter PG completely error free (or correction free, for that matter.) Page scans allow for an additional layer of safety for any scholar concerned about the adherence to a given print edition, though a certain level of trust in the provider is still required. Thus, while I hope that PG's holdings are as accurate as possible, it would also be my hope that scholars using PG would cite PG. Evidently this is not always the case. Michael Hart wrote: >I've also heard that many of those who complain, actually use our >eBooks in secret, and ONLY want the provenance so they can steal >them without giving credit where credit is due. This suggests to me two things. 1) We can include page scans and information about provenance, _when available_, with the files so that academics can feel confident in the reliability of those PG holdings. Not so that the original sources can be dishonestly cited, but to provide the necessary data for certain scholars to confidently cite PG's edition. We can point to this in our documentation to enhance our scholarly credibility. 2) We can prominently suggest an appropriate style of citation of works in PG's holdings. (I've seen this done with other digital collections.) Perhaps if the citation style also takes into account the original source, some otherwise reluctant scholars would be appeased. Is this something we can all agree on? -- David Newman www.davidnewman.info

7 7

I'm sorry, I don't get it [Was: Perfection, PG Audience, etc.]
by John Hagerson 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

#define SOMEWHAT_PEEVED 1 I'm a student (or a researcher). I'm writing a paper. I'm planning to cite an e-book. Why don't I just DOWNLOAD the eBook to my computer and append it to my paper? Then, it doesn't make any difference what happens to the eBook left in the ether. TEACHER, HERE IS THE COPY *I* USED. I'm just a lowly volunteer slogging my way through DP producing books. If Jon Noring wants to go off and create "Distributed Definitive Editions," I don't see anything stopping him. I, personally, am not at all interested in that effort, but I'm just a lowly peasant (an *anybody* doing proofreading). What am I missing? #define SOMEWHAT_PEEVED 0 John

5 5

Re: [ebook-community] Ask The eBook Community: Page Scans versus Real eText?
by Michael Hart 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Michael Ward wrote: > > Jon, two major reasons to convert from page scans: > > 1. File size, text vs. jpeg. > 2. Access to the -content- [semantics, meanings, words] > a. Search > b. Indexing > c. Quoting > d. Footnoting > e. Links > > > Michael Ward > Hidden Knowledge Let's not forget the following: 3. Changing the -content- a. Correcting typos and other errors b. Adding footnotes, comments, prefaces, intros, epilogues from other public domain sources; or your own. c. Machine Transltion d. Inserting missing lines, paragraphs, etc.

1 1

Page Scans versus Real eText?
by Jon Noring 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

[I posted the following to The eBook Community. But clearly most of the real experts in digitizing texts are found right here on gutvol-d, so I'm reposting the message here. I'm especially curious in the economics associated with commercially doing what Michael Hart and PG has done for years and years.] There are essentially two ways to digitize and place online textual works which exist only on paper. This applies, for example, to older public domain books. 1) Digitally scan the publication, and place the resultant page scan images online as the final product. Optionally, these page scans can be OCR'd to produce a raw (uncorrected) searchable index to search for page scans that may be of interest to the user. Additionally, the scanned images can be "packed" into a PDF document for online distribution and viewing, and for offline printing. 2) The publication is converted into real digital text, using either OCR or keying in by hand to produce the raw text. Then, significant human effort is expended to proofread and correct the digital text for any transcribing/OCR and other errors. The resultant cleaned-up text can either be kept in plain text form (traditional Project Gutenberg text), or marked-up into XML documents using some markup vocabulary. (Optionally, the original page scans can be kept along-side the cleaned-up/marked-up text, thereby accruing whatever advantages the first method gives.) Clearly, digital text is superior in many respects to page scan images. The biggest downside is the need to do the laborious human proofing. Online proofing systems such as Distributed Proofreaders have made proofing much easier to do, mobilizing many willing volunteer proofers and providing a convenient Internet interface. However, in discussions with various people on this topic I've not been able to explain, in a cogent and compelling way, all the reasons why the additional effort should be expended to produce high-quality digital text. Some of these people believe that putting the scanned page images online is more than sufficient. So, this is an "Ask TeBC" request for better arguments to use. I hope, too, that it catalyzes interesting discussion on the various aspects associated with the general issue of getting our printed heritage online, which is obviously an ebook-related topic. And this not only applies to books, but to periodicals, newspapers, and many other types of historical documents. ***** Another related question: If I have a typical printed book (say a 300 page fictional work), and I hire a commercial company to convert it into a clean, high-quality digital text with XML markup (e.g., using TEI-Lite), how much would it cost? In the U.S.? Overseas (such as in India)? Anyone know? ***** Jon Noring

2 1

future of ebooks + Scholarly use of PG + books to take to bed
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

In a message dated 11/13/2004 3:37:14 PM Mountain Standard Time, shalesller(a)writeme.com writes: >>You >>told us we couldn't find a quote in a large body of text, >>you tell us >>that typeface is important when no printed book cares, >>you complain >>that an ebook in Courier is hard to read, which is a bit >>like saying >>that it's hard to read this book because it's upside >>down. Right on. I loathe Courier, so I don't read my ebooks in Courier; I read them on the computer in Times New Roman, and I read them on my ebook reader in Arial, because that's the default. I could change it if I wanted to. As for books to read in bed . . . well, good people, I have wonderful news for you. A version of the Rocket has been revived. FictionWise now has one available for $99 and is actively working on newer versions. Go here for more information: _eBookwise_ (http://www.ebookwise.com/) As for me, why would I (or anybody else) reading in bed want to read a paper book, which has only one right-side-up and doesn't care what position I'm in and how uncomfortable I am trying to read it in that position, when I have a lovely little device that will change its orientation so that if I want to hold it in my left hand or in my right hand or longwise with either side up, it agreeably makes its buttons available to whatever hand I want to use, and it will let me decide which of four positions is "up" right now? Oh yes, and it's backlit, so I don't have to keep an overhead light on. Believe me, you read this kind of book in bed for one hour and you will NEVER want to go back to tree books for reading in bed. (Back to the quotation I started with, I CAN read my book upside-down, because upside-down becomes right-side-up at the click of a button.) As yet, eBookWise does not sell a program for turning your own material into.rb format, but you go to the site below and download the second program, the one that supports USB or serial port, and you can turn your Gutenberg books into .rb books. Then use your eBookWise librarian to import the .rb books and put them into your eBookWise reader. _Rocket eBook Site_ (http://www.rocket-ebook.com/Readers/Software/) In fact, I will make a rash promise that I probably will live to regret, and promise you that when you buy your eBookWise ebook reader, let me know what five PG books you want the most and I'll convert them myself, though they're probably already at Blackmask in .rb format. You can also get .rb books at _Phoenix-Library - A worldwide multiformat ebook library._ (http://www.phoenix-library.org/) Among its other offerings, it has an excellent selection of translating dictionaries from and to several different languages. These are not searchable; instead, when you start to read a book that you know is likely to have words in different languages, you also load the different language, and then whenever you come to a word you don't know you tell your reader what language it is and to look it up, and most of the time the word will be present. I keep French-English and Spanish-English on my reader at all times, and add other dictionaries (which I keep in my ebook library) when I need them. So--you want a good look at the future of ebooks? Brothers and sisters, it's here. Of course technology will improve. It is the job of technology to improve. But every time it does, there will be a sufficient span of time for PG and its descendants to change the filing system into one that can remain readable. Someone used the example of Beowulf. Uh, yeah. That's a good one. I can't possibly read it in its original language, but I can read it in my original language whenever I want it. Some people find Chaucer unreadable. I don't, but I'm glad it's available in modern English for people who can read it only that way. After all, you can't understand Shakespeare unless you read him in the original Klingon. Anne

3 2

What do scholars want?
by John Hagerson 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

>From the prospective of a peasant. It appears that the most important thing that scholars want is immutability. A dead tree copy of a book can't be changed, so they can go on endlessly about which dead tree copy is "better" than any other dead tree copy (I know where all of the errors are, and you don't, so there!). Even though, eventually, dead tree copies wear out, are burned up in fires, are carelessly discarded, or sold off to make space, etc., etc., they don't change. Therefore, an electronic copy is unacceptable because: 1. Maybe it is not the exact representation of a dead tree copy. This is entirely unacceptable because "my" dead tree copy is better than all of the others. 2. Its URL might change and then I couldn't find it. 3. Worse yet, the URL doesn't change but the text does. (See point 1.) It appears that we need to modify the PG web site to include checksum and CRC data on each of our files to provide a mechanism of verifying that they have not been nefariously modified after download, so "my" electronic copy can be judged the same as "your" electronic copy. I fall back to my earlier point: What would be better when you're submitting research than to include a copy of every item of source material? This is not done with dead trees because we do not have a mechanism to instantly create an exact duplicate of a given piece of material for free in the dead tree world. Such a mechanism does exist in the electronic world. When academia wakes up to this fact, maybe their negativity toward electronic copies will lessen somewhat.

4 3

Gone with the wind i s "Gone with the wind"
by Norm Wolcott 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

Sayonara. Apparently all versions of GWTW have disappeared from the net. nwolcott2(a)post.harvard.edu Friar Wolcott, Gutenberg Abbey, Sherwood Forrest

2 4

Re: Marking bold & italics in .txt (was Re: [gutvol-d] a few questions that i don't know the answer to)
by Jim Tinsley 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 22:34:52 -0500, Joshua Hutchinson <joshua(a)hutchinson.net> wrote: >Jim Tinsley wrote: > >> >>Where bold does need to be rendered in plain text, the current >>most common usage (from DP) is *bold text*. There are times when >>it is appropriate to signify bold, but I have seen some texts >>coming from DP where it has been used unnecessarily -- mostly >>to indicate a sub-heading or chapter title in the book. In >>such a case, where a chapter title is clearly a chapter title >>and on a line by itself, there really is no need to mark it in >>the plain text version as having been bold face in the original. >>I think this practice comes from people pre-marking the text for >>later conversion to HTML, rather than any intent to clutter the >>plain text. >> >> >> >Actually, it is probably there from the OCR pre-processing and was never >removed through all the rounds of proofing and post-processing... why I >feel this is important enough of a distinction that I needed to make a >post about ... I have no idea. Well, at least you cleared up a mystery for me! Thanks! And since I have now been asked twice within the last couple of weeks about bold, I guess that's Frequently enough to go into the FAQ. It's now on the list for the next update. jim

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] I'm sorry, I don't get it [Was: Perfection, PG Audience, etc.]
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

In a message dated 11/13/2004 5:16:55 PM Mountain Standard Time, j.hagerson(a)comcast.net writes: Why don't I just DOWNLOAD the eBook to my computer and append it to my paper? Then, it doesn't make any difference what happens to the eBook left in the ether. TEACHER, HERE IS THE COPY *I* USED. Jon, as one who has graded many college papers, I beg and plead and implore that you provide the teacher the complete URL, not the ebook itself. However, this is a great idea. Anne

1 0

RE: [gutvol-d] Scholarly use of PG
by D. Starner 13 Nov '04

13 Nov '04

"Her Serene Highness" writes: > However- and this is a big however- PG is not > 'publishing' books. It's copying them. There is no PG publishing house that > is making decisions on whether something is worth publishing or not. Yes, there is. The people of PG as a whole decide whether something is worth publishing or not. There are many books that the people of PG have decided they aren't worth publishing for right now, because they are too hard to scan, too hard to process, too expensive or too hard to get a copy of, etc. > Textual clues do not live only in words. A book comes alive in typeface, > and in word placement on a page. I've seen a grand total of two modern books that used the long-s and weren't facsimile copies, and one of those only used the long-s to replicate the original title pages, not the original text. Several of the facsimile editions have been upfront about the fact that they do what they do for cost reasons, not because it's better. > Saving > a book while divorcing it from its index, illustrations, typefont, and so on > is not 'saving' it. It's a decontextualization. If you want an original copy, go find it. But every new publication decontextualizes the books. Somehow Beowulf readers are willing to deal with editions that look nothing like the original, that lack its illustrations, its typeface. I've handled books printed in Germany in the mid-18th century, and it's an experience in some ways. But that doesn't mean that I insist that reprints be printed in old-style German fonts on rag paper. > A book may be perfectly good reading material- but an ebook printed > in Courier (which is very hard to read), Then don't print it in Courier. That choice is left to you. > perhaps missing its original > illustrations, without an index that shows the manner in which the author's > or editor's mind worked- is no longer the original book. No, it's not. We don't have matter copiers to replicate the original book. > I recall the cry that vinyl was going the way of the dinosaur- yet it has > not. In fact, the MP3 player is the new vinyl- Vinyl has gone the way of the dinosaur; I think it's down to less than 0.5% of the new material sold is on vinyl, and that in a few limited genres. The MP3 may be the "new vinyl", but it's not vinyl. > However, Napster technology is not better in the long run > than a record- CDs and computer memory degrade at an alarming rate. Records are degraded the instant they're pressed, are impossible to copy, and degrade while playing. Napster made backups on a million computers in a few days. You can manually make backups easily, and take them in the car or while jogging. You seem like you're looking for reasons to attack new technology. It has its faults, but I think the complete superseding of records by CDs is good evidence that CDs are overall better than records. > Books > aren't dead either, and people who think books are about finding passages in > less than 25 seconds are missing the point of why people read That was a challenge you made. > People read because they want a total experience - computers don't feel like > paper. They don't smell. The text is usually flat and more difficult to > read. Some of this will change over time- but not all of it, thank the Lord. That's absurd. People read for a million reasons; there is no one point of why people read. Some readings are for entertainment, some readings are because there's nothing else to do on a long trip, some are of whole books for detailed information, some are of one page for a little piece of information. Yes, some people prefer to read on paper for those things that will never be replicated on computer, but we aren't going into libraries and taking books off the shelves. > (copying things and > leaving out some of the vitals doesn't constitute puplishing in most > people's minds, or at least not in a good way, no matter that info techies > might want to think) My library has dozens of little brown books in a series called "Handy Literal Translations", where they took older translations, dumped most of the plays or speeches, and published them in a handy portable form. Or how about the Augustan Reprint Society which frequently reprinted only the introduction, or select essays from various volumes? > libraries don't cut the covers and > publishing info off their books to make more room on the shelves, Right, they put them on microfilm and throw the newspapers away. My mother has a signed Mark Twain that the library was getting rid of, and someone on DP bought boxes of books at the Sydney University bookfest at $5 a piece. Don't tell me that libraries don't get rid of books. As for the covers, in many academic libraries, a number of books have had their covers removed and replaced with a library binding. I rarely see dust jackets on library books, especially not in university libraries. Decontextualization galore. > they > include books of criticism, How many books of criticism do you usually find in a library of 10,000 to 15,000 books? It's not like we don't include books of criticism, it's just that we don't have many yet. > Whether they understand how people use books or why- well, I > seriously doubt that some people here have thought about that. Right, all these people who love books so much that they would spend their volunteer time working on scanning them and proofing them don't know how people use books or why. They just love books from a distance; they don't actually use them. Furthermore, I don't think you understand how people use ebooks or why. You spend a lot of time in criticism, but a lot of it just wrong. You told us we couldn't find a quote in a large body of text, you tell us that typeface is important when no printed book cares, you complain that an ebook in Courier is hard to read, which is a bit like saying that it's hard to read this book because it's upside down. > its incomaptibilty with WP and vice versa makes > life tough on those who do. Have you ever tried learning Word? Your gripes sound like someone who learned WordPerfect and never bothered to learn Word. To which, may I ask again, that you conform to the standard email quoting standard and trim irrelevant text that you aren't replying to? There are rules which have developed over time for the ease of communication via email, which may at some points be arbitary, but everyone adhering to the standard facilites communicating. Your ignoring of these rules make me feel that it's less of a communication and more your demanding that the computer world bend entirely to conform to your little world. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

1 0