On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:13 AM, John Vandenberg <[email protected]> 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 downstream. 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 one-time hardship followed by a permanent useful coordination. > Wikisource is trying to become a credible competitor to PGDP. 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. Absolutely. SJ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
