Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Content Format

[Rob Scott]

WE ARE NOT NUPEDIA

--- Jean-Daniel Fekete <address@hidden>
wrote: > 
> Bob Dodd <address@hidden> Wrote :
> 
> > Why are we getting so hung up on content format?
> >
> > Clearly there is a *minimum* level of information
> we need to know
> about
> > the entry (however that gets submitted and
> stored), and we need to
> know
> > what format the content is in, in order to present
> the content to the
> > user. But that's all.
> >
> > This whole thing about HTML, XML, Tei, Latex,
> MathML for content
> > description is meaningless, and so quickly
> outdated by the "march of
> > technology" as to make discussion almost (but not
> quite) pointless...
> 
> No, this is not true.
> All the "big" libraries like the Lib. of Congress
> are concerned about
> persistence of technology.  They have not been able
> to re-read tapes
> that have been written ten years ago.  They know
> what they are talking
> about for data format and encoding, as well as
> keeping textual
> information for a long time.
> 
> However, they are now considering XML as mature
> enough to be the
> infrastructure for encoding  their textual archives
> and they consider
> TEI as the good format.
> 
> The point is not to have the latest technology here.
>  The point is to be
> able to describe an encyclopedia faithfully without
> losing important
> information.  If technology changes, it is easy to
> translate from
> XML/TEI into something else that suits our needs.
> 
> To make a parallel, if you consider the GNU projet
> ten years ago, RMS
> chose the "C" language because it was mature enough
> and could be used to
> implement all desirable applications.  "C" has not
> been chosen because
> it was the "best" language, nor the preferred
> language of RMS, just
> because it was mature.
> The point is the same with XML and TEI that can be
> paralleled with Unix
> (the infrastructure) and "C" (the language).
> 
> > There is a minimum practical limit on content
> formats in that our
> > "editors" (however you wish to define that term)
> need to be able to
> > check for spam etc. After that, it's up to
> presentation tools to
> decide
> > how to handle the format of the material (e.g.
> some may not be able to
> 
> > display Chinese or Arabic fonts), and when they
> can't how they inform
> > the user (e.g. a prompt to "Format xyz not
> supported: save to disk?")
> >
> > Let's be honest, the vast majority of people don't
> even know latex or
> > Tei exists, would be terrified of writing
> XML/HTML/WML, and would
> > expect to write their (formatted) entries in
> Microsoft Word, embedding
> 
> > pictures created using Excel and Visio. If we want
> their entries (and
> > it's pointless even saying "text files", because
> most people would
> > think that a Word document *is* a text file), we
> need to accept those
> > formats too... So long as storing an retrieveing
> the content doesn't
> > have copyright issues, I think you have to leave
> it to presentation
> > tools, as to which format they support, and when
> they can only show
> our
> > "mimumum" information.
> 
> You can already create XML/TEI documents using Emacs
> and FrameMaker.
> It would be better if Microsoft Office could produce
> it but I don't
> expect that in the near future.
> If we need free tools to help in the creation of
> Nupedia, we can do it.
> But it would be a much difficult task to build
> another XML DTD plus the
> tools, given the DTD would evolve quickly.
> 
> > OK, you can encourage certain content formats, but
> you can't be too
> > prescriptive. We also have to live in the real
> world, where most of
> our
> > authors may be computer literate, but their idea
> of document
> production
> > is to use commercial tools (that often come "free"
> with their PCs).
> 
> You are right, the format required for a
> encyclopedia is probably
> complicated.  I have written some encyclopedic
> articles (about
> PostScript and PDF) and it took me time to do it
> right.  Somebody
> re-entered it in FrameMaker and did the editorial
> work to fit the
> quality of the encyclopedia.
> 
> I don't know how to avoid that.  I could have done
> it, but you cannot
> expect a specialist of say botanics to follow the
> rules required by a
> good encyclopedia.  Somebody will have to translate
> the MSWord document
> and structure it, filling the required field to
> index it.
> 
> Accepting loosely structured documents will lower
> the quality of the
> encyclopedia and that does not seem to match the
> goal of the project.
> 
> --
>   Jean-Daniel Fekete
>   Ecole des Mines de Nantes, 4 rue Alfred Kastler,
> La Chantrerie,
>   BP 20722, 44307 Nantes Cedex 03, France
>   Voice: +33-2-51-85-82-08  | Fax: +33-2-51-85-82-49
>   address@hidden |
> http://www.emn.fr/fekete/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnupedia mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnupedia


____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie