On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:13 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> 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 strict and arduous workflow... The
result is quality, however only the text is sent
Why not send images and text downstream?
Wikisource and PGDP don't interoperate. We
*could*, but when I looked
at importing a PGDP project into Wikisource, I put it in the too hard basket.
That's what I mean by 'coordinate'. "hard" here seems like a
hardship followed by a permanent useful coordination.
Wikisource is trying to become a credible competitor
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 a WS editor could quickly
check to see if there's a PGDP effort covering an edition of the text
she is proofing; and vice-versa.
I want us to get better, faster, less held up by the idea of
coordinating with other projects, because there are much larger
projects out there worthy of coordinating with. The annotators who
work on the Perseus Project come to mind... but that's truly a harder
problem than this one.
If the Wikisource projects succeeds in
demonstrating the wiki way is a viable approach, the result is
different people choosing to work in different workflows/projects, and
more reliable etexts being produced.