IO-Compress-Brotli
view release on metacpan or search on metacpan
brotli/tests/testdata/lcet10.txt view on Meta::CPAN
networks have begun to signal that for various forms of media a
determination may be made that there is a browse-quality item, or a
distribution-and-access-quality item that may coexist in some systems
with a higher quality archival item that would be inconvenient to send
through the network because of its size. FLEISCHHAUER referred, of
course, to images more than to searchable text.
As AM considered those questions, several conceptual issues arose: ought
AM occasionally to reproduce materials entirely through an image set, at
other times, entirely through a text set, and in some cases, a mix?
There probably would be times when the historical authenticity of an
artifact would require that its image be used. An image might be
desirable as a recourse for users if one could not provide 100-percent
accurate text. Again, AM wondered, as a practical matter, if a
distinction could be drawn between rare printed matter that might exist
in multiple collections--that is, in ten or fifteen libraries. In such
cases, the need for perfect reproduction would be less than for unique
items. Implicit in his remarks, FLEISCHHAUER conceded, was the admission
that AM has been tilting strongly towards quantity and drawing back a
little from perfect quality. That is, it seemed to AM that society would
be better served if more things were distributed by LC--even if they were
not quite perfect--than if fewer things, perfectly represented, were
distributed. This was stated as a proposition to be tested, with
responses to be gathered from users.
In thinking about issues related to reproduction of materials and seeing
other people engaged in parallel activities, AM deemed it useful to
convene a conference. Hence, the Workshop. FLEISCHHAUER thereupon
surveyed the several groups represented: 1) the world of images (image
users and image makers); 2) the world of text and scholarship and, within
this group, those concerned with language--FLEISCHHAUER confessed to finding
delightful irony in the fact that some of the most advanced thinkers on
computerized texts are those dealing with ancient Greek and Roman materials;
3) the network world; and 4) the general world of library science, which
includes people interested in preservation and cataloging.
FLEISCHHAUER concluded his remarks with special thanks to the David and
Lucile Packard Foundation for its support of the meeting, the American
Memory group, the Office for Scholarly Programs, the National
Demonstration Lab, and the Office of Special Events. He expressed the
hope that David Woodley Packard might be able to attend, noting that
Packard's work and the work of the foundation had sponsored a number of
projects in the text area.
******
SESSION I. CONTENT IN A NEW FORM: WHO WILL USE IT AND WHAT WILL THEY DO?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DALY * Acknowledgements * A new Latin authors disk * Effects of the new
technology on previous methods of research *
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Serving as moderator, James DALY acknowledged the generosity of all the
presenters for giving of their time, counsel, and patience in planning
the Workshop, as well as of members of the American Memory project and
other Library of Congress staff, and the David and Lucile Packard
Foundation and its executive director, Colburn S. Wilbur.
DALY then recounted his visit in March to the Center for Electronic Texts
in the Humanities (CETH) and the Department of Classics at Rutgers
University, where an old friend, Lowell Edmunds, introduced him to the
department's IBYCUS scholarly personal computer, and, in particular, the
new Latin CD-ROM, containing, among other things, almost all classical
Latin literary texts through A.D. 200. Packard Humanities Institute
(PHI), Los Altos, California, released this disk late in 1991, with a
nominal triennial licensing fee.
Playing with the disk for an hour or so at Rutgers brought home to DALY
at once the revolutionizing impact of the new technology on his previous
methods of research. Had this disk been available two or three years
earlier, DALY contended, when he was engaged in preparing a commentary on
Book 10 of Virgil's Aeneid for Cambridge University Press, he would not
have required a forty-eight-square-foot table on which to spread the
numerous, most frequently consulted items, including some ten or twelve
concordances to key Latin authors, an almost equal number of lexica to
authors who lacked concordances, and where either lexica or concordances
were lacking, numerous editions of authors antedating and postdating Virgil.
Nor, when checking each of the average six to seven words contained in
the Virgilian hexameter for its usage elsewhere in Virgil's works or
other Latin authors, would DALY have had to maintain the laborious
mechanical process of flipping through these concordances, lexica, and
editions each time. Nor would he have had to frequent as often the
Milton S. Eisenhower Library at the Johns Hopkins University to consult
the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Instead of devoting countless hours, or
the bulk of his research time, to gathering data concerning Virgil's use
of words, DALY--now freed by PHI's Latin authors disk from the
tyrannical, yet in some ways paradoxically happy scholarly drudgery--
would have been able to devote that same bulk of time to analyzing and
interpreting Virgilian verbal usage.
Citing Theodore Brunner, Gregory Crane, Elli MYLONAS, and Avra MICHELSON,
DALY argued that this reversal in his style of work, made possible by the
new technology, would perhaps have resulted in better, more productive
research. Indeed, even in the course of his browsing the Latin authors
disk at Rutgers, its powerful search, retrieval, and highlighting
capabilities suggested to him several new avenues of research into
Virgil's use of sound effects. This anecdotal account, DALY maintained,
may serve to illustrate in part the sudden and radical transformation
being wrought in the ways scholars work.
******
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
MICHELSON * Elements related to scholarship and technology * Electronic
texts within the context of broader trends within information technology
and scholarly communication * Evaluation of the prospects for the use of
electronic texts * Relationship of electronic texts to processes of
scholarly communication in humanities research * New exchange formats
created by scholars * Projects initiated to increase scholarly access to
converted text * Trend toward making electronic resources available
through research and education networks * Changes taking place in
scholarly communication among humanities scholars * Network-mediated
scholarship transforming traditional scholarly practices * Key
information technology trends affecting the conduct of scholarly
communication over the next decade * The trend toward end-user computing
* The trend toward greater connectivity * Effects of these trends * Key
transformations taking place * Summary of principal arguments *
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
brotli/tests/testdata/lcet10.txt view on Meta::CPAN
to topics in the social sciences and humanities. The rate of growth of
these scholarly electronic conferences also is astonishing. From l990 to
l991, 200 new conferences were identified on Internet. From October 1991
to June 1992, an additional 150 conferences in the social sciences and
humanities were added to this directory of listings. Scholars have
established conferences in virtually every field, within every different
discipline. For example, there are currently close to 600 active social
science and humanities conferences on topics such as art and
architecture, ethnomusicology, folklore, Japanese culture, medical
education, and gifted and talented education. The appeal to scholars of
communicating through these conferences is that, unlike any other medium,
electronic conferences today provide a forum for global communication
with peers at the front end of the research process.
Interpretation and analysis of sources constitutes the third process of
scholarly communication that MICHELSON discussed in terms of texts and
textual resources. The methods used to analyze sources fall somewhere on
a continuum from quantitative analysis to qualitative analysis.
Typically, evidence is culled and evaluated using methods drawn from both
ends of this continuum. At one end, quantitative analysis involves the
use of mathematical processes such as a count of frequencies and
distributions of occurrences or, on a higher level, regression analysis.
At the other end of the continuum, qualitative analysis typically
involves nonmathematical processes oriented toward language
interpretation or the building of theory. Aspects of this work involve
the processing--either manual or computational--of large and sometimes
massive amounts of textual sources, although the use of nontextual
sources as evidence, such as photographs, sound recordings, film footage,
and artifacts, is significant as well.
Scholars have discovered that many of the methods of interpretation and
analysis that are related to both quantitative and qualitative methods
are processes that can be performed by computers. For example, computers
can count. They can count brush strokes used in a Rembrandt painting or
perform regression analysis for understanding cause and effect. By means
of advanced technologies, computers can recognize patterns, analyze text,
and model concepts. Furthermore, computers can complete these processes
faster with more sources and with greater precision than scholars who
must rely on manual interpretation of data. But if scholars are to use
computers for these processes, source materials must be in a form
amenable to computer-assisted analysis. For this reason many scholars,
once they have identified the sources that are key to their research, are
converting them to machine-readable form. Thus, a representative example
of the numerous textual conversion projects organized by scholars around
the world in recent years to support computational text analysis is the
TLG, the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. This project is devoted to
converting the extant ancient texts of classical Greece. (Editor's note:
according to the TLG Newsletter of May l992, TLG was in use in thirty-two
different countries. This figure updates MICHELSON's previous count by one.)
The scholars performing these conversions have been asked to recognize
that the electronic sources they are converting for one use possess value
for other research purposes as well. As a result, during the past few
years, humanities scholars have initiated a number of projects to
increase scholarly access to converted text. So, for example, the Text
Encoding Initiative (TEI), about which more is said later in the program,
was established as an effort by scholars to determine standard elements
and methods for encoding machine-readable text for electronic exchange.
In a second effort to facilitate the sharing of converted text, scholars
have created a new institution, the Center for Electronic Texts in the
Humanities (CETH). The center estimates that there are 8,000 series of
source texts in the humanities that have been converted to
machine-readable form worldwide. CETH is undertaking an international
search for converted text in the humanities, compiling it into an
electronic library, and preparing bibliographic descriptions of the
sources for the Research Libraries Information Network's (RLIN)
machine-readable data file. The library profession has begun to initiate
large conversion projects as well, such as American Memory.
While scholars have been making converted text available to one another,
typically on disk or on CD-ROM, the clear trend is toward making these
resources available through research and education networks. Thus, the
American and French Research on the Treasury of the French Language
(ARTFL) and the Dante Project are already available on Internet.
MICHELSON summarized this section on interpretation and analysis by
noting that: 1) increasing numbers of humanities scholars in the library
community are recognizing the importance to the advancement of
scholarship of retrospective conversion of source materials in the arts
and humanities; and 2) there is a growing realization that making the
sources available on research and education networks maximizes their
usefulness for the analysis performed by humanities scholars.
The fourth process of scholarly communication is dissemination of
research findings, that is, publication. Scholars are using existing
research and education networks to engineer a new type of publication:
scholarly-controlled journals that are electronically produced and
disseminated. Although such journals are still emerging as a
communication format, their number has grown, from approximately twelve
to thirty-six during the past year (July 1991 to June 1992). Most of
these electronic scholarly journals are devoted to topics in the
humanities. As with network conferences, scholarly enthusiasm for these
electronic journals stems from the medium's unique ability to advance
scholarship in a way that no other medium can do by supporting global
feedback and interchange, practically in real time, early in the research
process. Beyond scholarly journals, MICHELSON remarked the delivery of
commercial full-text products, such as articles in professional journals,
newsletters, magazines, wire services, and reference sources. These are
being delivered via on-line local library catalogues, especially through
CD-ROMs. Furthermore, according to MICHELSON, there is general optimism
that the copyright and fees issues impeding the delivery of full text on
existing research and education networks soon will be resolved.
The final process of scholarly communication is curriculum development
and instruction, and this involves the use of computer information
technologies in two areas. The first is the development of
computer-oriented instructional tools, which includes simulations,
multimedia applications, and computer tools that are used to assist in
the analysis of sources in the classroom, etc. The Perseus Project, a
database that provides a multimedia curriculum on classical Greek
civilization, is a good example of the way in which entire curricula are
being recast using information technologies. It is anticipated that the
current difficulty in exchanging electronically computer-based
instructional software, which in turn makes it difficult for one scholar
to build upon the work of others, will be resolved before too long.
Stand-alone curricular applications that involve electronic text will be
sharable through networks, reinforcing their significance as intellectual
products as well as instructional tools.
The second aspect of electronic learning involves the use of research and
education networks for distance education programs. Such programs
interactively link teachers with students in geographically scattered
locations and rely on the availability of electronic instructional
resources. Distance education programs are gaining wide appeal among
brotli/tests/testdata/lcet10.txt view on Meta::CPAN
enjoyed a happy experience with Federal Prison Industries, which
precluded the necessity of going through the request-for-proposal process
to award a contract, because it is another government agency. The
prisoners performed AM's rekeying just as well as other service bureaus
and proved handy as well. AM shipped them the books, which they would
photocopy on a book-edge scanner. They would perform the markup on
photocopies, return the books as soon as they were done with them,
perform the keying, and return the material to AM on WORM disks.
ZIDAR detailed the elements that constitute the previously noted cost of
approximately $7 per page. Most significant is the editing, correction
of errors, and spell-checkings, which though they may sound easy to
perform require, in fact, a great deal of time. Reformatting text also
takes a while, but a significant amount of NAL's expenses are for equipment,
which was extremely expensive when purchased because it was one of the few
systems on the market. The costs of equipment are being amortized over
five years but are still quite high, nearly $2,000 per month.
HOCKEY raised a general question concerning OCR and the amount of editing
required (substantial in her experience) to generate the kind of
structured markup necessary for manipulating the text on the computer or
loading it into any retrieval system. She wondered if the speakers could
extend the previous question about the cost-benefit of adding or exerting
structured markup. ERWAY noted that several OCR systems retain italics,
bolding, and other spatial formatting. While the material may not be in
the format desired, these systems possess the ability to remove the
original materials quickly from the hands of the people performing the
conversion, as well as to retain that information so that users can work
with it. HOCKEY rejoined that the current thinking on markup is that one
should not say that something is italic or bold so much as why it is that
way. To be sure, one needs to know that something was italicized, but
how can one get from one to the other? One can map from the structure to
the typographic representation.
FLEISCHHAUER suggested that, given the 100 million items the Library
holds, it may not be possible for LC to do more than report that a thing
was in italics as opposed to why it was italics, although that may be
desirable in some contexts. Promising to talk a bit during the afternoon
session about several experiments OCLC performed on automatic recognition
of document elements, and which they hoped to extend, WEIBEL said that in
fact one can recognize the major elements of a document with a fairly
high degree of reliability, at least as good as OCR. STEVENS drew a
useful distinction between standard, generalized markup (i.e., defining
for a document-type definition the structure of the document), and what
he termed a style sheet, which had to do with italics, bolding, and other
forms of emphasis. Thus, two different components are at work, one being
the structure of the document itself (its logic), and the other being its
representation when it is put on the screen or printed.
******
SESSION V. APPROACHES TO PREPARING ELECTRONIC TEXTS
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
HOCKEY * Text in ASCII and the representation of electronic text versus
an image * The need to look at ways of using markup to assist retrieval *
The need for an encoding format that will be reusable and multifunctional
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Susan HOCKEY, director, Center for Electronic Texts in the Humanities
(CETH), Rutgers and Princeton Universities, announced that one talk
(WEIBEL's) was moved into this session from the morning and that David
Packard was unable to attend. The session would attempt to focus more on
what one can do with a text in ASCII and the representation of electronic
text rather than just an image, what one can do with a computer that
cannot be done with a book or an image. It would be argued that one can
do much more than just read a text, and from that starting point one can
use markup and methods of preparing the text to take full advantage of
the capability of the computer. That would lead to a discussion of what
the European Community calls REUSABILITY, what may better be termed
DURABILITY, that is, how to prepare or make a text that will last a long
time and that can be used for as many applications as possible, which
would lead to issues of improving intellectual access.
HOCKEY urged the need to look at ways of using markup to facilitate retrieval,
not just for referencing or to help locate an item that is retrieved, but also to put markup tags in
a text to help retrieve the thing sought either with linguistic tagging or
interpretation. HOCKEY also argued that little advancement had occurred in
the software tools currently available for retrieving and searching text.
She pressed the desideratum of going beyond Boolean searches and performing
more sophisticated searching, which the insertion of more markup in the text
would facilitate. Thinking about electronic texts as opposed to images means
considering material that will never appear in print form, or print will not
be its primary form, that is, material which only appears in electronic form.
HOCKEY alluded to the history and the need for markup and tagging and
electronic text, which was developed through the use of computers in the
humanities; as MICHELSON had observed, Father Busa had started in 1949
to prepare the first-ever text on the computer.
HOCKEY remarked several large projects, particularly in Europe, for the
compilation of dictionaries, language studies, and language analysis, in
which people have built up archives of text and have begun to recognize
the need for an encoding format that will be reusable and multifunctional,
that can be used not just to print the text, which may be assumed to be a
byproduct of what one wants to do, but to structure it inside the computer
so that it can be searched, built into a Hypertext system, etc.
******
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WEIBEL * OCLC's approach to preparing electronic text: retroconversion,
keying of texts, more automated ways of developing data * Project ADAPT
and the CORE Project * Intelligent character recognition does not exist *
Advantages of SGML * Data should be free of procedural markup;
descriptive markup strongly advocated * OCLC's interface illustrated *
Storage requirements and costs for putting a lot of information on line *
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stuart WEIBEL, senior research scientist, Online Computer Library Center,
Inc. (OCLC), described OCLC's approach to preparing electronic text. He
argued that the electronic world into which we are moving must
accommodate not only the future but the past as well, and to some degree
even the present. Thus, starting out at one end with retroconversion and
keying of texts, one would like to move toward much more automated ways
of developing data.
For example, Project ADAPT had to do with automatically converting
document images into a structured document database with OCR text as
indexing and also a little bit of automatic formatting and tagging of
that text. The CORE project hosted by Cornell University, Bellcore,
OCLC, the American Chemical Society, and Chemical Abstracts, constitutes
brotli/tests/testdata/lcet10.txt view on Meta::CPAN
the moment by the Copyright Office.
* Software that drives a mechanical process is itself copyrightable.
If one changes platforms, the software itself has a copyright. The
World Intellectual Property Organization will hold a symposium 28
March through 2 April l993, at Harvard University, on digital
technology, and will study this entire issue. If one purchases a
computer software package, such as MacPaint, and creates something
new, one receives protection only for that which has been added.
PETERS added that often in copyright matters, rough justice is the
outcome, for example, in collective licensing, ASCAP (i.e., American
Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers), and BMI (i.e., Broadcast
Music, Inc.), where it may seem that the big guys receive more than their
due. Of course, people ought not to copy a creative product without
paying for it; there should be some compensation. But the truth of the
world, and it is not a great truth, is that the big guy gets played on
the radio more frequently than the little guy, who has to do much more
until he becomes a big guy. That is true of every author, every
composer, everyone, and, unfortunately, is part of life.
Copyright always originates with the author, except in cases of works
made for hire. (Most software falls into this category.) When an author
sends his article to a journal, he has not relinquished copyright, though
he retains the right to relinquish it. The author receives absolutely
everything. The less prominent the author, the more leverage the
publisher will have in contract negotiations. In order to transfer the
rights, the author must sign an agreement giving them away.
In an electronic society, it is important to be able to license a writer
and work out deals. With regard to use of a work, it usually is much
easier when a publisher holds the rights. In an electronic era, a real
problem arises when one is digitizing and making information available.
PETERS referred again to electronic licensing clearinghouses. Copyright
ought to remain with the author, but as one moves forward globally in the
electronic arena, a middleman who can handle the various rights becomes
increasingly necessary.
The notion of copyright law is that it resides with the individual, but
in an on-line environment, where a work can be adapted and tinkered with
by many individuals, there is concern. If changes are authorized and
there is no agreement to the contrary, the person who changes a work owns
the changes. To put it another way, the person who acquires permission
to change a work technically will become the author and the owner, unless
some agreement to the contrary has been made. It is typical for the
original publisher to try to control all of the versions and all of the
uses. Copyright law always only sets up the boundaries. Anything can be
changed by contract.
******
SESSION VII. CONCLUSION
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
GENERAL DISCUSSION * Two questions for discussion * Different emphases in
the Workshop * Bringing the text and image partisans together *
Desiderata in planning the long-term development of something * Questions
surrounding the issue of electronic deposit * Discussion of electronic
deposit as an allusion to the issue of standards * Need for a directory
of preservation projects in digital form and for access to their
digitized files * CETH's catalogue of machine-readable texts in the
humanities * What constitutes a publication in the electronic world? *
Need for LC to deal with the concept of on-line publishing * LC's Network
Development Office exploring the limits of MARC as a standard in terms
of handling electronic information * Magnitude of the problem and the
need for distributed responsibility in order to maintain and store
electronic information * Workshop participants to be viewed as a starting
point * Development of a network version of AM urged * A step toward AM's
construction of some sort of apparatus for network access * A delicate
and agonizing policy question for LC * Re the issue of electronic
deposit, LC urged to initiate a catalytic process in terms of distributed
responsibility * Suggestions for cooperative ventures * Commercial
publishers' fears * Strategic questions for getting the image and text
people to think through long-term cooperation * Clarification of the
driving force behind both the Perseus and the Cornell Xerox projects *
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In his role as moderator of the concluding session, GIFFORD raised two
questions he believed would benefit from discussion: 1) Are there enough
commonalities among those of us that have been here for two days so that
we can see courses of action that should be taken in the future? And, if
so, what are they and who might take them? 2) Partly derivative from
that, but obviously very dangerous to LC as host, do you see a role for
the Library of Congress in all this? Of course, the Library of Congress
holds a rather special status in a number of these matters, because it is
not perceived as a player with an economic stake in them, but are there
roles that LC can play that can help advance us toward where we are heading?
Describing himself as an uninformed observer of the technicalities of the
last two days, GIFFORD detected three different emphases in the Workshop:
1) people who are very deeply committed to text; 2) people who are almost
passionate about images; and 3) a few people who are very committed to
what happens to the networks. In other words, the new networking
dimension, the accessibility of the processability, the portability of
all this across the networks. How do we pull those three together?
Adding a question that reflected HOCKEY's comment that this was the
fourth workshop she had attended in the previous thirty days, FLEISCHHAUER
wondered to what extent this meeting had reinvented the wheel, or if it
had contributed anything in the way of bringing together a different group
of people from those who normally appear on the workshop circuit.
HOCKEY confessed to being struck at this meeting and the one the
Electronic Pierce Consortium organized the previous week that this was a
coming together of people working on texts and not images. Attempting to
bring the two together is something we ought to be thinking about for the
future: How one can think about working with image material to begin
with, but structuring it and digitizing it in such a way that at a later
stage it can be interpreted into text, and find a common way of building
text and images together so that they can be used jointly in the future,
with the network support to begin there because that is how people will
want to access it.
In planning the long-term development of something, which is what is
being done in electronic text, HOCKEY stressed the importance not only
of discussing the technical aspects of how one does it but particularly
of thinking about what the people who use the stuff will want to do.
But conversely, there are numerous things that people start to do with
electronic text or material that nobody ever thought of in the beginning.
LESK, in response to the question concerning the role of the Library of
brotli/tests/testdata/lcet10.txt view on Meta::CPAN
not collect other versions. But while true for software, BYRUM observed,
this reply does not speak to materials, that is, all the materials that
were published that were on somebody's microcomputer or driver tapes
at a publishing office across the country. LC does well to acquire
specific machine-readable products selectively that were intended to be
machine-readable. Materials that were in machine-readable form at one time,
BYRUM said, would be beyond LC's capability at the moment, insofar as
attempting to acquire, organize, and preserve them are concerned--and
preservation would be the most important consideration. In this
connection, GIFFORD reiterated the need to work out some sense of
distributive responsibility for a number of these issues, which
inevitably will require significant cooperation and discussion.
Nobody can do it all.
LESK suggested that some publishers may look with favor on LC beginning
to serve as a depository of tapes in an electronic manuscript standard.
Publishers may view this as a service that they did not have to perform
and they might send in tapes. However, SPERBERG-McQUEEN countered,
although publishers have had equivalent services available to them for a
long time, the electronic text archive has never turned away or been
flooded with tapes and is forever sending feedback to the depositor.
Some publishers do send in tapes.
ANDRE viewed this discussion as an allusion to the issue of standards.
She recommended that the AAP standard and the TEI, which has already been
somewhat harmonized internationally and which also shares several
compatibilities with the AAP, be harmonized to ensure sufficient
compatibility in the software. She drew the line at saying LC ought to
be the locus or forum for such harmonization.
Taking the group in a slightly different direction, but one where at
least in the near term LC might play a helpful role, LYNCH remarked the
plans of a number of projects to carry out preservation by creating
digital images that will end up in on-line or near-line storage at some
institution. Presumably, LC will link this material somehow to its
on-line catalog in most cases. Thus, it is in a digital form. LYNCH had
the impression that many of these institutions would be willing to make
those files accessible to other people outside the institution, provided
that there is no copyright problem. This desideratum will require
propagating the knowledge that those digitized files exist, so that they
can end up in other on-line catalogs. Although uncertain about the
mechanism for achieving this result, LYNCH said that it warranted
scrutiny because it seemed to be connected to some of the basic issues of
cataloging and distribution of records. It would be foolish, given the
amount of work that all of us have to do and our meager resources, to
discover multiple institutions digitizing the same work. Re microforms,
LYNCH said, we are in pretty good shape.
BATTIN called this a big problem and noted that the Cornell people (who
had already departed) were working on it. At issue from the beginning
was to learn how to catalog that information into RLIN and then into
OCLC, so that it would be accessible. That issue remains to be resolved.
LYNCH rejoined that putting it into OCLC or RLIN was helpful insofar as
somebody who is thinking of performing preservation activity on that work
could learn about it. It is not necessarily helpful for institutions to
make that available. BATTIN opined that the idea was that it not only be
for preservation purposes but for the convenience of people looking for
this material. She endorsed LYNCH's dictum that duplication of this
effort was to be avoided by every means.
HOCKEY informed the Workshop about one major current activity of CETH,
namely a catalogue of machine-readable texts in the humanities. Held on
RLIN at present, the catalogue has been concentrated on ASCII as opposed
to digitized images of text. She is exploring ways to improve the
catalogue and make it more widely available, and welcomed suggestions
about these concerns. CETH owns the records, which are not just
restricted to RLIN, and can distribute them however it wishes.
Taking up LESK's earlier question, BATTIN inquired whether LC, since it
is accepting electronic files and designing a mechanism for dealing with
that rather than putting books on shelves, would become responsible for
the National Copyright Depository of Electronic Materials. Of course
that could not be accomplished overnight, but it would be something LC
could plan for. GIFFORD acknowledged that much thought was being devoted
to that set of problems and returned the discussion to the issue raised
by LYNCH--whether or not putting the kind of records that both BATTIN and
HOCKEY have been talking about in RLIN is not a satisfactory solution.
It seemed to him that RLIN answered LYNCH's original point concerning
some kind of directory for these kinds of materials. In a situation
where somebody is attempting to decide whether or not to scan this or
film that or to learn whether or not someone has already done so, LYNCH
suggested, RLIN is helpful, but it is not helpful in the case of a local,
on-line catalogue. Further, one would like to have her or his system be
aware that that exists in digital form, so that one can present it to a
patron, even though one did not digitize it, if it is out of copyright.
The only way to make those linkages would be to perform a tremendous
amount of real-time look-up, which would be awkward at best, or
periodically to yank the whole file from RLIN and match it against one's
own stuff, which is a nuisance.
But where, ERWAY inquired, does one stop including things that are
available with Internet, for instance, in one's local catalogue?
It almost seems that that is LC's means to acquire access to them.
That represents LC's new form of library loan. Perhaps LC's new on-line
catalogue is an amalgamation of all these catalogues on line. LYNCH
conceded that perhaps that was true in the very long term, but was not
applicable to scanning in the short term. In his view, the totals cited
by Yale, 10,000 books over perhaps a four-year period, and 1,000-1,500
books from Cornell, were not big numbers, while searching all over
creation for relatively rare occurrences will prove to be less efficient.
As GIFFORD wondered if this would not be a separable file on RLIN and
could be requested from them, BATTIN interjected that it was easily
accessible to an institution. SEVERTSON pointed out that that file, cum
enhancements, was available with reference information on CD-ROM, which
makes it a little more available.
In HOCKEY's view, the real question facing the Workshop is what to put in
this catalogue, because that raises the question of what constitutes a
publication in the electronic world. (WEIBEL interjected that Eric Joule
in OCLC's Office of Research is also wrestling with this particular
problem, while GIFFORD thought it sounded fairly generic.) HOCKEY
contended that a majority of texts in the humanities are in the hands
of either a small number of large research institutions or individuals
and are not generally available for anyone else to access at all.
She wondered if these texts ought to be catalogued.
After argument proceeded back and forth for several minutes over why
cataloguing might be a necessary service, LEBRON suggested that this
issue involved the responsibility of a publisher. The fact that someone
has created something electronically and keeps it under his or her
control does not constitute publication. Publication implies
dissemination. While it would be important for a scholar to let other
people know that this creation exists, in many respects this is no
different from an unpublished manuscript. That is what is being accessed
in there, except that now one is not looking at it in the hard-copy but
in the electronic environment.
brotli/tests/testdata/lcet10.txt view on Meta::CPAN
Use of microform
Anne R. Kenney, Assistant Director, Department of Preservation
and Conservation, Cornell University
Pamela Q.J. Andre, Associate Director, Automation, and
Judith A. Zidar, Coordinator, National Agricultural Text
Digitizing Program (NATDP), National Agricultural Library
(NAL)
Donald J. Waters, Head, Systems Office, Yale University Library
B) Special Problems:
Bound volumes
Conservation
Reproducing printed halftones
Carl Fleischhauer, Coordinator, American Memory, Library of
Congress
George Thoma, Chief, Communications Engineering Branch,
National Library of Medicine (NLM)
10:30-
11:00 AM Break
11:00 AM Session IV. Image Capture, Text Capture, Overview of Text and
Image Storage Formats (Cont'd.).
C) Image Standards and Implications for Preservation
Jean Baronas, Senior Manager, Department of Standards and
Technology, Association for Information and Image Management
(AIIM)
Patricia Battin, President, The Commission on Preservation and
Access (CPA)
D) Text Conversion:
OCR vs. rekeying
Standards of accuracy and use of imperfect texts
Service bureaus
Stuart Weibel, Senior Research Specialist, Online Computer
Library Center, Inc. (OCLC)
Michael Lesk, Executive Director, Computer Science Research,
Bellcore
Ricky Erway, Associate Coordinator, American Memory, Library of
Congress
Pamela Q.J. Andre, Associate Director, Automation, and
Judith A. Zidar, Coordinator, National Agricultural Text
Digitizing Program (NATDP), National Agricultural Library
(NAL)
12:30-
1:30 PM Lunch
1:30 PM Session V. Approaches to Preparing Electronic Texts.
Discussion of approaches to structuring text for the computer;
pros and cons of text coding, description of methods in
practice, and comparison of text-coding methods.
Moderator: Susan Hockey, Director, Center for Electronic Texts
in the Humanities (CETH), Rutgers and Princeton Universities
David Woodley Packard
C.M. Sperberg-McQueen, Editor, Text Encoding Initiative (TEI),
University of Illinois-Chicago
Eric M. Calaluca, Vice President, Chadwyck-Healey, Inc.
3:30-
4:00 PM Break
4:00 PM Session VI. Copyright Issues.
Marybeth Peters, Policy Planning Adviser to the Register of
Copyrights, Library of Congress
5:00 PM Session VII. Conclusion.
General discussion.
What topics were omitted or given short shrift that anyone
would like to talk about now?
Is there a "group" here? What should the group do next, if
anything? What should the Library of Congress do next, if
anything?
Moderator: Prosser Gifford, Director for Scholarly Programs,
Library of Congress
6:00 PM Adjourn
*** *** *** ****** *** *** ***
Appendix II: ABSTRACTS
SESSION I
Avra MICHELSON Forecasting the Use of Electronic Texts by
Social Sciences and Humanities Scholars
This presentation explores the ways in which electronic texts are likely
to be used by the non-scientific scholarly community. Many of the
remarks are drawn from a report the speaker coauthored with Jeff
Rothenberg, a computer scientist at The RAND Corporation.
The speaker assesses 1) current scholarly use of information technology
and 2) the key trends in information technology most relevant to the
research process, in order to predict how social sciences and humanities
scholars are apt to use electronic texts. In introducing the topic,
current use of electronic texts is explored broadly within the context of
scholarly communication. From the perspective of scholarly
communication, the work of humanities and social sciences scholars
involves five processes: 1) identification of sources, 2) communication
with colleagues, 3) interpretation and analysis of data, 4) dissemination
of research findings, and 5) curriculum development and instruction. The
extent to which computation currently permeates aspects of scholarly
communication represents a viable indicator of the prospects for
electronic texts.
The discussion of current practice is balanced by an analysis of key
trends in the scholarly use of information technology. These include the
trends toward end-user computing and connectivity, which provide a
brotli/tests/testdata/lcet10.txt view on Meta::CPAN
Centre Canadien d'Architecture
(Canadian Center for Architecture)
1920, rue Baile
Montreal, Quebec H3H 2S6
CANADA
Phone: (514) 939-7001
Fax: (514) 939-7020
E-mail: howard@lis.pitt.edu
Edwin B. Brownrigg, Executive Director
Memex Research Institute
422 Bonita Avenue
Roseville, CA 95678
Phone: (916) 784-2298
Fax: (916) 786-7559
E-mail: BITNET: MEMEX@CALSTATE.2
Eric M. Calaluca, Vice President
Chadwyck-Healey, Inc.
1101 King Street
Alexandria, VA 223l4
Phone: (800) 752-05l5
Fax: (703) 683-7589
James Daly
4015 Deepwood Road
Baltimore, MD 21218-1404
Phone: (410) 235-0763
Ricky Erway, Associate Coordinator
American Memory
Library of Congress
Phone: (202) 707-6233
Fax: (202) 707-3764
Carl Fleischhauer, Coordinator
American Memory
Library of Congress
Phone: (202) 707-6233
Fax: (202) 707-3764
Joanne Freeman
2000 Jefferson Park Avenue, No. 7
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Prosser Gifford
Director for Scholarly Programs
Library of Congress
Phone: (202) 707-1517
Fax: (202) 707-9898
E-mail: pgif@seq1.loc.gov
Jacqueline Hess, Director
National Demonstration Laboratory
for Interactive Information Technologies
Library of Congress
Phone: (202) 707-4157
Fax: (202) 707-2829
Susan Hockey, Director
Center for Electronic Texts in the Humanities (CETH)
Alexander Library
Rutgers University
169 College Avenue
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
Phone: (908) 932-1384
Fax: (908) 932-1386
E-mail: hockey@zodiac.rutgers.edu
William L. Hooton, Vice President
Business & Technical Development
Imaging & Information Systems Group
I-NET
6430 Rockledge Drive, Suite 400
Bethesda, MD 208l7
Phone: (301) 564-6750
Fax: (513) 564-6867
Anne R. Kenney, Associate Director
Department of Preservation and Conservation
701 Olin Library
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
Phone: (607) 255-6875
Fax: (607) 255-9346
E-mail: LYDY@CORNELLA.BITNET
Ronald L. Larsen
Associate Director for Information Technology
University of Maryland at College Park
Room B0224, McKeldin Library
College Park, MD 20742-7011
Phone: (301) 405-9194
Fax: (301) 314-9865
E-mail: rlarsen@libr.umd.edu
Maria L. Lebron, Managing Editor
The Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials
l333 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 326-6735
Fax: (202) 842-2868
E-mail: PUBSAAAS@GWUVM.BITNET
Michael Lesk, Executive Director
Computer Science Research
Bell Communications Research, Inc.
Rm 2A-385
445 South Street
Morristown, NJ 07960-l9l0
Phone: (201) 829-4070
Fax: (201) 829-5981
E-mail: lesk@bellcore.com (Internet) or bellcore!lesk (uucp)
Clifford A. Lynch
Director, Library Automation
University of California,
Office of the President
300 Lakeside Drive, 8th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612-3350
Phone: (510) 987-0522
( run in 1.127 second using v1.01-cache-2.11-cpan-600a1bdf6e4 )