Hello Aubrey,
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Aubrey wrote:
> The issue of metadata is nontheless serious, because it's one of the most
> important flaws of Wikisource: not applying standards (i.e Dublin Core) and
> not
> having a proper tools for export/import and harvest metadata
Both good
> Perhaps we have competing interfaces / workflows. but I expect we
> would be glad to share 99.99%-verified high-quality
> texts-unified-with-images if it were easy for both projects to
> identify that combination of quality and comprehensive data... and
> would be glad to share metadata so that
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Good question! ;-)
> Storage is one issue.
> It would be interesting to estimate the storage requirements of
> Wikisource if we had produced the PGDP etexts.
I think it is the main reason; however, a back-of-the-envelope
calculation (20.0
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Samuel J Klein wrote:
> < PGDP has a very strict and arduous workflow... The
>> result is quality, however only the text is sent downstream.
>
> Why not send images and text downstream?
Because PGDP produces for Project Gutenberg, which publishes text and
html
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Samuel J Klein wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:13 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>> irrespective of whether it is verified, OCR
>> quality, or if it is vandalism. However, wikisource keeps the images
>> and the text unified from day 0 to eternity.
>
> Some works b
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:13 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> irrespective of whether it is verified, OCR
> quality, or if it is vandalism. However, wikisource keeps the images
> and the text unified from day 0 to eternity.
Some works become verified, and reach high OCR quality.
< PGDP has a very s
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Andre, this is a great summary -- I've linked to it from the english
> ws Scriptorium.
>
> Do you see opportunities for the two projects to coordinate their
> wofklows better?
I don't understand your use of 'coordinate' in this context.
Wiki
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Andre, this is a great summary -- I've linked to it from the english
> ws Scriptorium.
>
> Do you see opportunities for the two projects to coordinate their
> wofklows better?
^^^
Clearly this email needed 1 more round of human checking.
Andre, this is a great summary -- I've linked to it from the english
ws Scriptorium.
Do you see opportunities for the two projects to coordinate their
wofklows better?
SJ
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>> I love thos
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> I love those proofreading features, and the new default layout for a
> book's pages and TOC. Wikisource is becoming AWESOME.
>
> Do we have PGDP contributors who can weigh on on how similar the
> processes are? Is there a way for us to actua
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:16 AM, James Forrester wrote:
> On 24 June 2010 15:37, Samuel Klein wrote:
>> I love those proofreading features, and the new default layout for a
>> book's pages and TOC. Wikisource is becoming AWESOME.
>
> Ahem. Even more awesome, you mean. :-)
It used to be just lo
On 24 June 2010 15:37, Samuel Klein wrote:
> I love those proofreading features, and the new default layout for a
> book's pages and TOC. Wikisource is becoming AWESOME.
Ahem. Even more awesome, you mean. :-)
> Do we have PGDP contributors who can weigh on on how similar the
> processes are? I
I love those proofreading features, and the new default layout for a
book's pages and TOC. Wikisource is becoming AWESOME.
Do we have PGDP contributors who can weigh on on how similar the
processes are? Is there a way for us to actually merge workflows with
them?
Prof. Greg Crane of The Perseus
(Renaming the subject as we've changed topic)
On 23 Jun 2010, at 21:31, Mariano Cecowski wrote:
> --- El mié 23-jun-10, Michael Peel escribió:
>
>> I always think than not using reCaptcha is a shame, as it's
>> a nice way to get people to proofread text in a reasonably
>> efficient way. It woul
14 matches
Mail list logo
