re: [gutvol-d] blah blah blog
michael said:
I read the PG eBooks with all sorts of plain text viewers and have no problems with inconsistencies, much less in the various browsers that have a wider range of options.
the inconsistencies are ones that a person "wouldn't notice", but which trip up any automated processing by a program... an obvious example would be that most section-headings (e.g., chapter headings) are preceded by four blank lines, but the occasional one might have three, or five, instead... nobody would claim that, in terms of a human reader, this inconsistency is meaningful -- it's not -- but when it comes to a program analyzing the file, it might make a difference... if there's only one level of header, then 3 or 4 or 5 blank lines might be equally good at signaling that there is a new section. but if a book has three different levels of headers, as some do, then you could use 5 blank lines to indicate the major sections, 4 to indicate regular sections, and 3 to indicate the subsections. if the number of blank lines isn't consistent, the program has to become much more sophisticated (and thus prone to failure) to try and determine the _actual_ level of each header. another example involves lines which should not be rewrapped, such as the lines in a table, or the lines in a letter's address-block. if these are consistently prefaced with one or more leading spaces, then a rewrap routine is easy to _write_ and easy to _comprehend_, and a programmer can spend time on more productive pursuits that add value and functionality, not ones that just resolve inconsistencies. lots of programmers have _started_ programs for the p.g. library. the vast majority of them have given up before long, in frustration. the inconsistencies in the formatting are the main source of difficulty. someday someone will set up a shadow version of the p.g. library where all the inconsistencies are resolved, and you will see then how much value is added by the ingenuity of programmers who are able to take consistent formatting of the e-texts for granted... -bowerbird
So, what you are telling me hre, ist hat while a human can muddle through ok, it takes a computer to really maess things up. On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 Bowerbird@aol.com wrote:
michael said:
I read the PG eBooks with all sorts of plain text viewers and have no problems with inconsistencies, much less in the various browsers that have a wider range of options.
the inconsistencies are ones that a person "wouldn't notice", but which trip up any automated processing by a program...
an obvious example would be that most section-headings (e.g., chapter headings) are preceded by four blank lines, but the occasional one might have three, or five, instead...
nobody would claim that, in terms of a human reader, this inconsistency is meaningful -- it's not -- but when it comes to a program analyzing the file, it might make a difference...
if there's only one level of header, then 3 or 4 or 5 blank lines might be equally good at signaling that there is a new section.
but if a book has three different levels of headers, as some do, then you could use 5 blank lines to indicate the major sections, 4 to indicate regular sections, and 3 to indicate the subsections.
if the number of blank lines isn't consistent, the program has to become much more sophisticated (and thus prone to failure) to try and determine the _actual_ level of each header.
another example involves lines which should not be rewrapped, such as the lines in a table, or the lines in a letter's address-block. if these are consistently prefaced with one or more leading spaces, then a rewrap routine is easy to _write_ and easy to _comprehend_, and a programmer can spend time on more productive pursuits that add value and functionality, not ones that just resolve inconsistencies.
lots of programmers have _started_ programs for the p.g. library. the vast majority of them have given up before long, in frustration. the inconsistencies in the formatting are the main source of difficulty.
someday someone will set up a shadow version of the p.g. library where all the inconsistencies are resolved, and you will see then how much value is added by the ingenuity of programmers who are able to take consistent formatting of the e-texts for granted...
-bowerbird
Michael Hart wrote:
So, what you are telling me hre, ist hat while a human can muddle through ok, it takes a computer to really maess things up.
I think what he is saying is that the human brain is a highly capable, general purpose computing device, highly capable of resolving ambiguity, whereas computers and their associated software are still rather primative devices. I believe that at some point in the future computers will be capable of resolving all the ambiguities inherent in PG e-texts, but that day is not yet here, and until then the software is going to require some human help.
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Lee Passey wrote:
Michael Hart wrote:
So, what you are telling me hre, ist hat while a human can muddle through ok, it takes a computer to really maess things up.
I think what he is saying is that the human brain is a highly capable, general purpose computing device, highly capable of resolving ambiguity, whereas computers and their associated software are still rather primative devices. I believe that at some point in the future computers will be capable of resolving all the ambiguities inherent in PG e-texts, but that day is not yet here, and until then the software is going to require some human help.
Still, I don't see why the computer has to make all those decisions. Can't it just lay there, out of the process, and just let me read? ;-)
Michael Hart wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Lee Passey wrote:
Michael Hart wrote:
So, what you are telling me hre, ist hat while a human can muddle through ok, it takes a computer to really maess things up.
I think what he is saying is that the human brain is a highly capable, general purpose computing device, highly capable of resolving ambiguity, whereas computers and their associated software are still rather primative devices. I believe that at some point in the future computers will be capable of resolving all the ambiguities inherent in PG e-texts, but that day is not yet here, and until then the software is going to require some human help.
Still, I don't see why the computer has to make all those decisions.
Can't it just lay there, out of the process, and just let me read?
;-)
It can, but it can also do more. Personally, my reading experience is improved if new chapters always start at the top of the screen, and if chapter and section headings are rendered in a way that makes it _obvious_ that they are chapter and section headings. When I read I like to become so engrossed that I don't have to stop and think about the mechanics of the layout. I _can_ do so, I just don't _want_ to. Obviously, Project Gutenberg e-texts are insufficient for me, just as they are adequate for you. But it is a fallacy to assume that because they are sufficient for you that they are sufficient for everyone.
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Lee Passey wrote:
Michael Hart wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Lee Passey wrote:
Michael Hart wrote:
So, what you are telling me hre, ist hat while a human can muddle through ok, it takes a computer to really maess things up.
I think what he is saying is that the human brain is a highly capable, general purpose computing device, highly capable of resolving ambiguity, whereas computers and their associated software are still rather primative devices. I believe that at some point in the future computers will be capable of resolving all the ambiguities inherent in PG e-texts, but that day is not yet here, and until then the software is going to require some human help.
Still, I don't see why the computer has to make all those decisions.
Can't it just lay there, out of the process, and just let me read?
;-)
It can, but it can also do more. Personally, my reading experience is improved if new chapters always start at the top of the screen, and if chapter and section headings are rendered in a way that makes it _obvious_ that they are chapter and section headings. When I read I like to become so engrossed that I don't have to stop and think about the mechanics of the layout. I _can_ do so, I just don't _want_ to.
Obviously, Project Gutenberg e-texts are insufficient for me, just as they are adequate for you. But it is a fallacy to assume that because they are sufficient for you that they are sufficient for everyone.
Obviously this is a conversation from those who are demanding something in terms of eBook preparation that they do not demand of paper books. I've spoken with librarians who would prefer that all books be made out of the same kinds of materials, the same kinds of paper, bindings, with them all cut to the same size. . .just think how much that would help a library with shelving, cart design, drop off slots, mailing boxes, etc. Then again, I've spoken to library patrons who would prefer that all of the libraries buy the same edition of the same books and shelve all the books in exactly the same manner, so they can walk into ANY library and just grab the first red book on the left and know what it will be. Once again the major point is that most of the work has already been in the system for you before you came along, and it is up to you to, "Take matters into your own hands," as one put it, and do the minuscule works that are required to make the books completely consistent with your own philosophy of how eBooks should be created. There's nothing wrong with what such people are asking, other than that they are asking someone else to do it for them, free of charge. "An Unfunded Mandate" as the politicians often refer to such things. Those of us who have been on this list, and others, for very long these days have no trouble remember any number of people who have had variety upon variety of requests that Project Gutenberg should be run in such a fashion as to meet with their demands. The response is always to invite the creation of some examples, along a suggested pathway for future efforts, to be accompanied by your request for others to assist you in making such future efforts. It's one thing to ask for help with something you are doing, whether it be a dozen examples per month or per year, until you finally get all of the volunteers you need to make things happen the way you would like. It's totally something else to insist that rules should be made to make others do things your way, whether they want to or not, especially when they are already doing most of what you want. Of course, there is a middle ground: write up the rules/suggestions in such a way that anyone creating eBooks is likely to find them before an eBook is created, and provide them with encouragement through examples. I don't think anyone would have an objection to each of the participant elements in these disussions having a URL posted to link to suggestions they have about eBook creation standards as long as all such suggestion files come complete with an ever increasing set of examples; after all, if YOU are not convinced enough of your own suggestions to carry them a short way every so often, how can you expect others to carry them every single time they make an eBook? The preferred solution at Project Gutenberg is to lead by example; make your preferences known and provide a continuing set of examples. Otherwise how will anyone know what you are encouraging them to do, and the reasons you have for your requests. In terms of making eBooks the way you want them to be: "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." Provide examples. Describe how these examples are better than previous examples, and how the previous examples are better than those that came before them. Make sure you describe the evolution of eBooks as a process, a process that can be improved from time to time. Then, if people like your new eBooks better than the old ones, you are very likely to find a dozen volunteers to help you provide even better eBook collections that will help you find even more volunteers. Give the world eBooks in 2006!!! Michael S. Hart Founder Project Gutenberg
On 1/31/06, Michael Hart <hart@pglaf.org> wrote:
Once again the major point is that most of the work has already been in the system for you before you came along, and it is up to you to, "Take matters into your own hands," as one put it, and do the minuscule works that are required to make the books completely consistent with your own philosophy of how eBooks should be created.
There's nothing wrong with what such people are asking, other than that they are asking someone else to do it for them, free of charge.
"An Unfunded Mandate" as the politicians often refer to such things.
Please don't bite people because they don't work the way you do. All he said is that Gutenberg books aren't layed out optimally for him. There's nothing wrong with someone discussing how things could be better, in their opinion. He didn't ask anyone to do anything for him.
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, David Starner wrote:
On 1/31/06, Michael Hart <hart@pglaf.org> wrote:
Once again the major point is that most of the work has already been in the system for you before you came along, and it is up to you to, "Take matters into your own hands," as one put it, and do the minuscule works that are required to make the books completely consistent with your own philosophy of how eBooks should be created.
There's nothing wrong with what such people are asking, other than that they are asking someone else to do it for them, free of charge.
"An Unfunded Mandate" as the politicians often refer to such things.
Please don't bite people because they don't work the way you do. All he said is that Gutenberg books aren't layed out optimally for him. There's nothing wrong with someone discussing how things could be better, in their opinion. He didn't ask anyone to do anything for him.
I guess you have a different way of interpreting what bowerbird says. I keep encouraging him to encourage others, rather than to discourage, and that this is more likely to get him what he says he wants. Personally, I worry that he might prefer to proven right by history, rather than by carrying his own plans to fruition, at least with the army of volunteers we have at hand. I do hope that he fines someone to pay for his work to the tune he hopes, and that he, or someone in a similar position, will eventually create something along the order of his dreams. I just think it would/could/should be now not later, and via volunteers rather than via some billionaire who gives him an enterprise grant, venture capital, etc. We've seen the billionaire approach to eBooks, and, frankly, it will be hard to imagine that such approaches could not have had any worse effect on the eBook world, even had that been their intention. That said, I/we can still hope the change that in the future. . . .
participants (4)
-
Bowerbird＠aol.com -
David Starner -
Lee Passey -
Michael Hart