Hope this might be of interest to some of you. I'm not sure how feasible it'll
be to stream and/or video the event, but we're currently looking into it.
regards
Dave Pattern
University of Huddersfield
-
Mashed Library UK 2009: Mash Oop North!
Date: Tuesday 7th July 2009
Time:
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress writes:
Thanks, Ross. For SRU, this is an opportune time to reconcile these
differences. Opportune, because we are approaching standardization
of SRU/CQL within OASIS, and there will be a number of areas that
need to change.
Agreed. Looking at the
Jonathan Rochkind writes:
Crosswalk is exactly the wrong answer for this. Two very small
overlapping communities of most library developers can surely agree
on using the same identifiers, and then we make things easier for
US. We don't need to solve the entire universe of problems. Solve
On the other hand, there are projects like bkrpr [2] and [3],
home-brew scanning stations build for marginally more than the cost of
a pair of $100 cameras.
Cameras around $100 dollars are very low quality. You could get no where
near the dpi recommended for materials that need to be OCRed. The
Amanda P wrote:
Cameras around $100 dollars are very low quality. You could get no where
near the dpi recommended for materials that need to be OCRed. The quality of
images from cameras would be not only low, but the OCR (even with the best
software) would probably have many errors. For someone
At Fri, 1 May 2009 09:51:19 -0500,
Amanda P wrote:
On the other hand, there are projects like bkrpr [2] and [3],
home-brew scanning stations build for marginally more than the cost of
a pair of $100 cameras.
Cameras around $100 dollars are very low quality. You could get no where
near the
I am pleased to disagree to various levels of 'strongly (if we can agree on a
definition for it :-).
Ross earlier gave a sample of a crossw3alk' for my MARC problem. What he
supplied
-snip
We could have something like:
http://purl.org/DataFormat/marcxml
. skos:prefLabel MARC21 XML .
.
Ideally, though, if we have some buy in and extend this outside our
communities, future identifiers *should* have fewer variations, since
people can find the appropriate URI for the format and use that.
I readily admit that this is wishful thinking, but so be it. I do
think that modeling it as
I agree with Ross wholeheartedly. Particularly in the use of an RDF based
mechanism to describe, and then have systems act on, the semantics of these
uniquely identified objects. Semantics (as in Web) has been exercising my
thoughts recently and the problems we have here are writ large over all
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Mike Taylor m...@indexdata.com wrote:
If you want real 300 dpi images, at anything like the quality you get
from a flatbed scanner, then you're going to need cameras much more
expensive than $100.
Or just wait, say, about 3 years.
That is right.
In addition, for certain printing (gold seal), digital camera delivers better
result than scanners.
-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 2:38 PM
To:
From my perspective, all we're talking about is using the same URI to
refer to the same format(s) accross the library community standards this
community generally can control.
That will make things much easier for developers, especially but not
only when building software that interacts with
My understanding is that a flatbed or sheetfed document scanner that
produces 300 dpi will produce much better OCR results than a cheap digital
camera that produces 300 dpi. The reasons have to do with the resolution
and distortion of the resulting image, where resolution is defined as the
So what are we talking about here? A situation where an SRU server
receives a request for response records to be delivered in a
particular format, it doesn't recognise the format URI, so it goes and
looks it up in an RDF database and discovers that it's equivalent to a
URI that it does know? Hmm
William Wueppelmann writes:
Cameras around $100 dollars are very low quality. You could get
no where near the dpi recommended for materials that need to be
OCRed. The quality of images from cameras would be not only low,
but the OCR (even with the best software) would probably have
Yeah, I don't think people use cameras instead of flatbed scanners
because they produce superior results, or are cheaper: They use them
because they're _faster_ for large-scale digitization, and also make it
possible to capture pages from rare/fragile materials with less damage
to the
I agree that most software probably won't do it. But the data will be
there and free and relatively easy to integrate if one wanted to.
In a lot ways, Jonathan, it's got Umlaut written all over it.
Now to get to Jonathan's point -- yes, I think the primary goal still
needs to be working towards
Mike Taylor wrote:
Or not. Cheap cameras may well produce JPEGs that contain eight
million pixels, but that doesn't mean that they are using all or
even much of that resolution.
Does anybody have a printed test sheet that we can scan or photo,
and then compare the resulting digital
18 matches
Mail list logo
