LOC Workshop on Etexts, Library of Congress [books to read in a lifetime TXT] 📗

or a distribution-and-access-quality item that may coexist in some systems with a higher quality archival item that would be inconvenient to send through the network because of its size. FLEISCHHAUER referred, of course, to images more than to searchable text.

As AM considered those questions, several conceptual issues arose: ought AM occasionally to reproduce materials entirely through an image set, at other times, entirely through a text set, and in some cases, a mix? There probably would be times when the historical authenticity of an artifact would require that its image be used. An image might be desirable as a recourse for users if one could not provide 100-percent accurate text. Again, AM wondered, as a practical matter, if a distinction could be drawn between rare printed matter that might exist in multiple collections—that is, in ten or fifteen libraries. In such cases, the need for perfect reproduction would be less than for unique items. Implicit in his remarks, FLEISCHHAUER conceded, was the admission that AM has been tilting strongly towards quantity and drawing back a little from perfect quality. That is, it seemed to AM that society would be better served if more things were distributed by LC—even if they were not quite perfect—than if fewer things, perfectly represented, were distributed. This was stated as a proposition to be tested, with responses to be gathered from users.

In thinking about issues related to reproduction of materials and seeing other people engaged in parallel activities, AM deemed it useful to convene a conference. Hence, the Workshop. FLEISCHHAUER thereupon surveyed the several groups represented: 1) the world of images (image users and image makers); 2) the world of text and scholarship and, within this group, those concerned with language—FLEISCHHAUER confessed to finding delightful irony in the fact that some of the most advanced thinkers on computerized texts are those dealing with ancient Greek and Roman materials; 3) the network world; and 4) the general world of library science, which includes people interested in preservation and cataloging.

FLEISCHHAUER concluded his remarks with special thanks to the David and Lucile Packard Foundation for its support of the meeting, the American Memory group, the Office for Scholarly Programs, the National Demonstration Lab, and the Office of Special Events. He expressed the hope that David Woodley Packard might be able to attend, noting that Packard’s work and the work of the foundation had sponsored a number of projects in the text area.

******

SESSION I. CONTENT IN A NEW FORM: WHO WILL USE IT AND WHAT WILL THEY DO?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DALY Acknowledgements A new Latin authors disk Effects of the new technology on previous methods of research

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Serving as moderator, James DALY acknowledged the generosity of all the presenters for giving of their time, counsel, and patience in planning the Workshop, as well as of members of the American Memory project and other Library of Congress staff, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and its executive director, Colburn S. Wilbur.

DALY then recounted his visit in March to the Center for Electronic Texts in the Humanities (CETH) and the Department of Classics at Rutgers University, where an old friend, Lowell Edmunds, introduced him to the department’s IBYCUS scholarly personal computer, and, in particular, the new Latin CD-ROM, containing, among other things, almost all classical Latin literary texts through A.D. 200. Packard Humanities Institute (PHI), Los Altos, California, released this disk late in 1991, with a nominal triennial licensing fee.

Playing with the disk for an hour or so at Rutgers brought home to DALY at once the revolutionizing impact of the new technology on his previous methods of research. Had this disk been available two or three years earlier, DALY contended, when he was engaged in preparing a commentary on Book 10 of Virgil’s Aeneid for Cambridge University Press, he would not have required a forty-eight-square-foot table on which to spread the numerous, most frequently consulted items, including some ten or twelve concordances to key Latin authors, an almost equal number of lexica to authors who lacked concordances, and where either lexica or concordances were lacking, numerous editions of authors antedating and postdating Virgil.

Nor, when checking each of the average six to seven words contained in the Virgilian hexameter for its usage elsewhere in Virgil’s works or other Latin authors, would DALY have had to maintain the laborious mechanical process of flipping through these concordances, lexica, and editions each time. Nor would he have had to frequent as often the Milton S. Eisenhower Library at the Johns Hopkins University to consult the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Instead of devoting countless hours, or the bulk of his research time, to gathering data concerning Virgil’s use of words, DALY—now freed by PHI’s Latin authors disk from the tyrannical, yet in some ways paradoxically happy scholarly drudgery— would have been able to devote that same bulk of time to analyzing and interpreting Virgilian verbal usage.

Citing Theodore Brunner, Gregory Crane, Elli MYLONAS, and Avra MICHELSON, DALY argued that this reversal in his style of work, made possible by the new technology, would perhaps have resulted in better, more productive research. Indeed, even in the course of his browsing the Latin authors disk at Rutgers, its powerful search, retrieval, and highlighting capabilities suggested to him several new avenues of research into Virgil’s use of sound effects. This anecdotal account, DALY maintained, may serve to illustrate in part the sudden and radical transformation being wrought in the ways scholars work.

******

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

MICHELSON Elements related to scholarship and technology Electronic texts within the context of broader trends within information technology and scholarly communication Evaluation of the prospects for the use of electronic texts Relationship of electronic texts to processes of scholarly communication in humanities research New exchange formats created by scholars Projects initiated to increase scholarly access to converted text Trend toward making electronic resources available through research and education networks Changes taking place in scholarly communication among humanities scholars Network-mediated scholarship transforming traditional scholarly practices Key information technology trends affecting the conduct of scholarly communication over the next decade The trend toward end-user computing The trend toward greater connectivity Effects of these trends Key transformations taking place Summary of principal arguments

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Avra MICHELSON, Archival Research and Evaluation Staff, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), argued that establishing who will use electronic texts and what they will use them for involves a consideration of both information technology and scholarship trends. This consideration includes several elements related to scholarship and technology: 1) the key trends in information technology that are most relevant to scholarship; 2) the key trends in the use of currently available technology by scholars in the nonscientific community; and 3) the relationship between these two very distinct but interrelated trends. The investment in understanding this relationship being made by information providers, technologists, and public policy developers, as well as by scholars themselves, seems to be pervasive and growing, MICHELSON contended. She drew on collaborative work with Jeff Rothenberg on the scholarly use of technology.

MICHELSON sought to place the phenomenon of electronic texts within the context of broader trends within information technology and scholarly communication. She argued that electronic texts are of most use to researchers to the extent that the researchers’ working context (i.e., their relevant bibliographic sources, collegial feedback, analytic tools, notes, drafts, etc.), along with their field’s primary and secondary sources, also is accessible in electronic form and can be integrated in ways that are unique to the on-line environment.

Evaluation of the prospects for the use of electronic texts includes two elements: 1) an examination of the ways in which researchers currently are using electronic texts along with other electronic resources, and 2) an analysis of key information technology trends that are affecting the long-term conduct of scholarly communication. MICHELSON limited her discussion of the use of electronic texts to the practices of humanists and noted that the scientific community was outside the panel’s overview.

MICHELSON examined the nature of the current relationship of electronic texts in particular, and electronic resources in general, to what she maintained were, essentially, five processes of scholarly communication in humanities research. Researchers 1) identify sources, 2) communicate with their colleagues, 3) interpret and analyze data, 4) disseminate their research findings, and 5) prepare curricula to instruct the next generation of scholars and students. This examination would produce a clearer understanding of the synergy among these five processes that fuels the tendency of the use of electronic resources for one process to stimulate its use for other processes of scholarly communication.

For the first process of scholarly communication, the identification of sources, MICHELSON remarked the opportunity scholars now enjoy to supplement traditional word-of-mouth searches for sources among their colleagues with new forms of electronic searching. So, for example, instead of having to visit the library, researchers are able to explore descriptions of holdings in their offices. Furthermore, if their own institutions’ holdings prove insufficient, scholars can access more than 200 major American library catalogues over Internet, including the universities of California, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Direct access to the bibliographic databases offers intellectual empowerment to scholars by presenting a comprehensive means of browsing through libraries from their homes and offices at their convenience.

The second process of communication involves communication among scholars. Beyond the most common methods of communication, scholars are using E-mail and a variety of new electronic communications formats derived from it for further academic interchange. E-mail exchanges are growing at an astonishing rate, reportedly 15 percent a month. They currently constitute approximately half the traffic on research and education networks. Moreover, the global spread of E-mail has been so rapid that it is now possible for American scholars to use it to communicate with colleagues in close to 140 other countries.

Other new exchange formats created by scholars and operating on Internet include more than 700 conferences, with about 80 percent of these devoted to topics in the social sciences and humanities. The rate of growth of these scholarly electronic conferences also is astonishing. From l990 to l991, 200 new conferences were identified on Internet. From October 1991 to June 1992, an additional 150 conferences in the social sciences and humanities were added to this directory of listings. Scholars have established conferences in virtually every field, within every different discipline. For example, there are currently close to 600 active social science and humanities conferences on topics such as art and architecture, ethnomusicology, folklore, Japanese culture, medical education, and gifted and talented education. The appeal to scholars of communicating through these conferences is that, unlike any other medium, electronic conferences today provide a forum for global communication with peers at the front end of the research process.

Interpretation and analysis of sources constitutes the third process of scholarly communication that MICHELSON discussed in terms of texts and textual resources. The methods used to analyze sources fall somewhere on a continuum from quantitative analysis to qualitative analysis. Typically, evidence is culled and evaluated using methods drawn from both ends of this continuum. At one end, quantitative analysis involves the use of mathematical processes such as a count of frequencies and distributions of occurrences or, on a higher level, regression analysis. At the other end of the continuum, qualitative analysis typically involves nonmathematical processes oriented toward language interpretation or the building of theory. Aspects of this work involve the processing—either manual or computational—of large and sometimes massive amounts of textual sources, although the use of nontextual sources as evidence, such as photographs, sound recordings, film footage, and artifacts, is significant as well.

Scholars have discovered that many of the methods of interpretation and analysis that are related to both quantitative and qualitative methods are processes that can be performed by computers. For example, computers can count. They can count brush strokes used in a Rembrandt painting