Hi Don, I have gathered all the information i need. 1) PG does not have a sufficiently specified set of constraints of what belongs in the contents of files and formats that they are willing to accept! 2) DP does have a well documented set of constraints, yet it is so polymorph that can be used to produced consistant data. or to put it differently, 1) PG has not concerned itself with the complexity of the problem of creating ebooks. That is left to the contributors! 2) DP has artificially overly introduced complexity to the problem. Know the complexity introduced by DP is that they believe that it easier to digitalize books by the syntactic mark up of the semantics of a book and texts. This assumption is false, because there is no semantic information in a book. the extraction of such information is a function of the human brain. All that is needed is to identify the syntactic structures of the layout of the book inorder to digitalize it into an ebook. Another problem is that classical book and text semantics do not mix well, and I assume that they have improperly mixed them. regards Keith. Am 09.02.2012 um 19:52 schrieb don kretz:
I thought this is PG. A PG list and want to improve PG.
regards Keith
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
If you want to improve something, don't you logically start with understanding what it is you are trying to improve? If you want to improve DP/PG's process, don't you start with any information you can find on that process?
There it is, at hopefully your appropriate level of abstraction and domain of interest. _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d