[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Requirements for mass digitization projects

I should apologise to the list for not drawing your attention to the hopeless and groaning pun:- large-scale digitization projects do not have to result in digital enlargement projects....

And here is a cleaner link to the enlarged digits:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC09756236&id=CrKWwZ4d29AC&pg=RA42-PA1#PRA42-PA1,M1

And yes, I had noticed that there is an OCLC catalog number buried in the url, but its not a helpful way of presenting that information.

Google has a lot of cataloging information to hand (there we go again) or it could not possibly be organising its scanning effort. It is a great pity that it does not help users by providing easy access to it.

I hope that in a New Year spirit of optimism and charity the list will forgive the dreadfulness of the puns.

Adam Hodgkin

www.exacteditions.com
mobile: +44 7931 371 744
skype name: adam.hodgkin
skype in: +44 20 7871 4537



On 12/28/06, adam hodgkin <adam.hodgkin@gmail.com> wrote:
There is another aspect to the Google approach to large-scale text capture which calls for comment. Google has so far shown little sensitivity to the requirement to provide consistent and reliable meta-data. There is now more information available from Google on the books it has scanned (click on the 'About this book link'). Indeed some of it seems rather promising (eg the list of 'key words and phrases' - but I dont see an explanation of how these phrases were selected -- presumably an algorithm); here is a typical instance:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC61913221&id=cD0JAAAAIAAJ&dq=clarendon

And for the public domain books, or some of them, these keywords are themselves hyper-linked to occurrences throughout the text. A very nice and typically Google-ish touch.

But in spite of some recent improvements there is overall a lack of explicitness and satisfactory meta-data from Google Book Search. There is still no reliable way of finding out systematically which books have been incorporated into Google Book Search and when they were incorporated, and it would be useful to be able to find out from which copy of an early book the Google scan was made (this information could be easily incorporated where library copies have been used).

I havent been following the other large-scale digitization projects at all closely, but I think its very likely that the best projects will have very open and explicit bibliographic metadata -- and Google should behave in a more explicit and open way if its project is to carry on.

BTW if you doubt that the Google project has some low-grade scans, take a look at this page (which is proffered by Google as the first of three typical Selected Pages for the book concerned) http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC09756236&id=CrKWwZ4d29AC&pg=RA42-PA1&dq=thomas+hodgkin One wonders whose fat fingers those were, that have been scanned in place of valuable 19th C text?

These large-scale digitization projects have enormous potential. I hope that the librarians ensure that the ones that work are the ones with good catalog data and superior meta-data. That criterion should be added to any list of desiderata, and it bears on all the aspects mentioned by Joe Esposito.

adam


On 12/25/06, Joseph J. Esposito <espositoj@gmail.com> wrote:
Ongoing discussions about various mass digitization projects, driven primarily by the Google Libraries program but including the respective activities of Microsoft, the Open Content Alliance, and others, prompts these comments about what should be taken into account as these programs proceed. My concern is a practical one: Some projects are incomplete in their design, which will likely result in their having to be redone in the near future, an expense that the world of scholarly communications can ill afford. There are at least four essential characteristics of any such project, and there may very well be more.

As many have noted, the first requirement of such a project is that it adopt an archival approach. Some scanning is now being done with little regard for preserving the entire informational context of the original. Scanning first editions of Dickens gives us nothing if the scans do not precisely copy first editions of Dickens; the corollary to this is that clearly articulated policies about archiving must be part of any mass digitization project. Some commercial projects have little regard for this, as archival quality simply is not part of the business plan; only members of the library community are in a position to assert the importance of this. An archival certification board is evolving as a scholarly desideratum.

Archives of digital facsimiles are important, but we also need readers' editions, the second requirement of mass digitization projects. This goes beyond scanning and involves the editorial process that is usually associated with the publishing industry. The point is not simply to preserve the cultural legacy but to make it more available to scholars, students, and interested laypeople. The high school student who first encounters Dickens's "Great Expectations" should not also be asked to fight with Victorian typography, not to mention orthography. In the absence of readers' editions, broad public support for mass digitization projects will be difficult to come by.

As devotees of "Web 2.0" insist with increasing frequency, all documents are in some sense community documents. Thus scanned and edited material must be placed into a technical environment that enables ongoing annotation and commentary. The supplemental commentary may in time be of greater importance than the initial or "founding" document itself, and some comments may themselves become seminal. I become uneasy, however, when the third requirement of community engagement is not paired with the first of archival fidelity. What do we gain when "The Declaration of Independence" is mounted on a Web site as a wiki? Sitting beneath the fascinating activities of an intellectually engaged community must be the curated archival foundation.

The fourth requirement is that mass digitization projects should yield file structures and tools that allow for machine process to work with the content. Whether this is called "pattern recognition" or "data mining" or something else is not important. What is important is to recognize that the world of research increasingly will be populated by robots, a term that no longer can or should carry a negative connotation. Some people call this "Web 3.0", but I prefer to think of it as "the post-human Internet," which may not even be a World Wide Web application.

To my knowledge, none of the current mass digitization projects fully incorporate all four of these requirements.

Note that I am not including any mention of copyright here, which is the topic that gets the most attention when mass digitization is contemplated. All four of these requirements hold for public domain documents. Copyright is a red herring.

Joe Esposito