Library of Congress Workshop on Etexts Part 13

Office Doc.u.ment Architecture (ODA) has some advantages that flow from its tight focus on office doc.u.ments and clear directions for implementation.

Much of the ODA standard is easier to read and clearer at first reading than the SGML standard, which is extremely general. What that means is that if one wants to use graphics in TIFF and ODA, one is stuck, because ODA defines graphics formats while TIFF does not, whereas SGML says the world is not waiting for this work group to create another graphics format.

What is needed is an ability to use whatever graphics format one wants.

The TEI provides a socket that allows one to connect the SGML doc.u.ment to the graphics. The notation that the graphics are in is clearly a choice that one needs to make based on her or his environment, and that is one advantage. SGML is less megalomaniacal in attempting to define formats for all kinds of information, though more megalomaniacal in attempting to cover all sorts of doc.u.ments. The other advantage is that the model of text represented by SGML is simply an order of magnitude richer and more flexible than the model of text offered by ODA. Both offer hierarchical structures, but SGML recognizes that the hierarchical model of the text that one is looking at may not have been in the minds of the designers, whereas ODA does not.

ODA is not really aiming for the kind of doc.u.ment that the TEI wants to encompa.s.s. The TEI can handle the kind of material ODA has, as well as a significantly broader range of material. ODA seems to be very much focused on office doc.u.ments, which is what it started out being called-- office doc.u.ment architecture.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CALALUCA * Text-encoding from a publisher's perspective *

Responsibilities of a publisher * Reproduction of Migne's Latin series whole and complete with SGML tags based on perceived need and expected use * Particular decisions arising from the general decision to produce and publish PLD *

The final speaker in this session, Eric CALALUCA, vice president, Chadwyck-Healey, Inc., spoke from the perspective of a publisher re text-encoding, rather than as one qualified to discuss methods of encoding data, and observed that the presenters sitting in the room, whether they had chosen to or not, were acting as publishers: making choices, gathering data, gathering information, and making a.s.sessments.

CALALUCA offered the hard-won conviction that in publishing very large text files (such as PLD), one cannot avoid making personal judgments of appropriateness and structure.

In CALALUCA's view, encoding decisions stem from prior judgments. Two notions have become axioms for him in the consideration of future sources for electronic publication: 1) electronic text publishing is as personal as any other kind of publishing, and questions of if and how to encode the data are simply a consequence of that prior decision; 2) all personal decisions are open to criticism, which is unavoidable.

CALALUCA rehea.r.s.ed his role as a publisher or, better, as an intermediary between what is viewed as a sound idea and the people who would make use of it. Finding the specialist to advise in this process is the core of that function. The publisher must monitor and hug the fine line between giving users what they want and suggesting what they might need. One responsibility of a publisher is to represent the desires of scholars and research librarians as opposed to bullheadedly forcing them into areas they would not choose to enter.

CALALUCA likened the questions being raised today about data structure and standards to the decisions faced by the Abbe Migne himself during production of the Patrologia series in the mid-nineteenth century.

Chadwyck-Healey's decision to reproduce Migne's Latin series whole and complete with SGML tags was also based upon a perceived need and an expected use. In the same way that Migne's work came to be far more than a simple handbook for clerics, PLD is already far more than a database for theologians. It is a bedrock source for the study of Western civilization, CALALUCA a.s.serted.

In regard to the decision to produce and publish PLD, the editorial board offered direct judgments on the question of appropriateness of these texts for conversion, their encoding and their distribution, and concluded that the best possible project was one that avoided overt intrusions or exclusions in so important a resource. Thus, the general decision to transmit the original collection as clearly as possible with the widest possible avenues for use led to other decisions: 1) To encode the data or not, SGML or not, TEI or not. Again, the expected user community a.s.serted the need for normative tagging structures of important humanities texts, and the TEI seemed the most appropriate structure for that purpose. Research librarians, who are trained to view the larger impact of electronic text sources on 80 or 90 or 100 doctoral disciplines, loudly approved the decision to include tagging. They see what is coming better than the specialist who is completely focused on one edition of Ambrose's De Anima, and they also understand that the potential uses exceed present expectations. 2) What will be tagged and what will not. Once again, the board realized that one must tag the obvious. But in no way should one attempt to identify through encoding schemes every single discrete area of a text that might someday be searched. That was another decision. Searching by a column number, an author, a word, a volume, permitting combination searches, and tagging notations seemed logical choices as core elements. 3) How does one make the data available? Tieing it to a CD-ROM edition creates limitations, but a magnetic tape file that is very large, is accompanied by the encoding specifications, and that allows one to make local modifications also allows one to incorporate any changes one may desire within the bounds of private research, though exporting tag files from a CD-ROM could serve just as well. Since no one on the board could possibly antic.i.p.ate each and every way in which a scholar might choose to mine this data bank, it was decided to satisfy the basics and make some provisions for what might come. 4) Not to encode the database would rob it of the interchangeability and portability these important texts should accommodate. For CALALUCA, the extensive options presented by full-text searching require care in text selection and strongly support encoding of data to facilitate the widest possible search strategies. Better software can always be created, but summoning the resources, the people, and the energy to reconvert the text is another matter.

PLD is being encoded, captured, and distributed, because to Chadwyck-Healey and the board it offers the widest possible array of future research applications that can be seen today. CALALUCA concluded by urging the encoding of all important text sources in whatever way seems most appropriate and durable at the time, without blanching at the thought that one's work may require emendation in the future. (Thus, Chadwyck-Healey produced a very large humanities text database before the final release of the TEI Guidelines.)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ DISCUSSION * Creating texts with markup advocated * Trends in encoding *

The TEI and the issue of interchangeability of standards * A misconception concerning the TEI * Implications for an inst.i.tution like LC in the event that a multiplicity of DTDs develops * Producing images as a first step towards possible conversion to full text through character recognition * The AAP tag sets as a common starting point and the need for caution *

HOCKEY prefaced the discussion that followed with several comments in favor of creating texts with markup and on trends in encoding. In the future, when many more texts are available for on-line searching, real problems in finding what is wanted will develop, if one is faced with millions of words of data. It therefore becomes important to consider putting markup in texts to help searchers home in on the actual things they wish to retrieve. Various approaches to refining retrieval methods toward this end include building on a computer version of a dictionary and letting the computer look up words in it to obtain more information about the semantic structure or semantic field of a word, its grammatical structure, and syntactic structure.

HOCKEY commented on the present keen interest in the encoding world in creating: 1) machine-readable versions of dictionaries that can be initially tagged in SGML, which gives a structure to the dictionary entry; these entries can then be converted into a more rigid or otherwise different database structure inside the computer, which can be treated as a dynamic tool for searching mechanisms; 2) large bodies of text to study the language. In order to incorporate more sophisticated mechanisms, more about how words behave needs to be known, which can be learned in part from information in dictionaries. However, the last ten years have seen much interest in studying the structure of printed dictionaries converted into computer-readable form. The information one derives about many words from those is only partial, one or two definitions of the common or the usual meaning of a word, and then numerous definitions of unusual usages. If the computer is using a dictionary to help retrieve words in a text, it needs much more information about the common usages, because those are the ones that occur over and over again. Hence the current interest in developing large bodies of text in computer-readable form in order to study the language. Several projects are engaged in compiling, for example, 100 million words. HOCKEY described one with which she was a.s.sociated briefly at Oxford University involving compilation of 100 million words of British English: about 10 percent of that will contain detailed linguistic tagging encoded in SGML; it will have word cla.s.s taggings, with words identified as nouns, verbs, adjectives, or other parts of speech. This tagging can then be used by programs which will begin to learn a bit more about the structure of the language, and then, can go to tag more text.

HOCKEY said that the more that is tagged accurately, the more one can refine the tagging process and thus the bigger body of text one can build up with linguistic tagging incorporated into it. Hence, the more tagging or annotation there is in the text, the more one may begin to learn about language and the more it will help accomplish more intelligent OCR. She recommended the development of software tools that will help one begin to understand more about a text, which can then be applied to scanning images of that text in that format and to using more intelligence to help one interpret or understand the text.

HOCKEY posited the need to think about common methods of text-encoding for a long time to come, because building these large bodies of text is extremely expensive and will only be done once.

In the more general discussion on approaches to encoding that followed, these points were made:

BESSER identified the underlying problem with standards that all have to struggle with in adopting a standard, namely, the tension between a very highly defined standard that is very interchangeable but does not work for everyone because something is lacking, and a standard that is less defined, more open, more adaptable, but less interchangeable. Contending that the way in which people use SGML is not sufficiently defined, BESSER wondered 1) if people resist the TEI because they think it is too defined in certain things they do not fit into, and 2) how progress with interchangeability can be made without frightening people away.

SPERBERG-McQUEEN replied that the published drafts of the TEI had met with surprisingly little objection on the grounds that they do not allow one to handle X or Y or Z. Particular concerns of the affiliated projects have led, in practice, to discussions of how extensions are to be made; the primary concern of any project has to be how it can be represented locally, thus making interchange secondary. The TEI has received much criticism based on the notion that everything in it is required or even recommended, which, as it happens, is a misconception from the beginning, because none of it is required and very little is actually actively recommended for all cases, except that one doc.u.ment one's source.

SPERBERG-McQUEEN agreed with BESSER about this trade-off: all the projects in a set of twenty TEI-conformant projects will not necessarily tag the material in the same way. One result of the TEI will be that the easiest problems will be solved--those dealing with the external form of the information; but the problem that is hardest in interchange is that one is not encoding what another wants, and vice versa. Thus, after the adoption of a common notation, the differences in the underlying conceptions of what is interesting about texts become more visible.

The success of a standard like the TEI will lie in the ability of the recipient of interchanged texts to use some of what it contains and to add the information that was not encoded that one wants, in a layered way, so that texts can be gradually enriched and one does not have to put in everything all at once. Hence, having a well-behaved markup scheme is important.

STEVENS followed up on the paradoxical a.n.a.logy that BESSER alluded to in the example of the MARC records, namely, the formats that are the same except that they are different. STEVENS drew a parallel between doc.u.ment-type definitions and MARC records for books and serials and maps, where one has a tagging structure and there is a text-interchange.

STEVENS opined that the producers of the information will set the terms for the standard (i.e., develop doc.u.ment-type definitions for the users of their products), creating a situation that will be problematical for an inst.i.tution like the Library of Congress, which will have to deal with the DTDs in the event that a multiplicity of them develops. Thus, numerous people are seeking a standard but cannot find the tag set that will be acceptable to them and their clients. SPERBERG-McQUEEN agreed with this view, and said that the situation was in a way worse: attempting to unify arbitrary DTDs resembled attempting to unify a MARC record with a bibliographic record done according to the Prussian instructions.

According to STEVENS, this situation occurred very early in the process.

WATERS recalled from early discussions on Project Open Book the concern of many people that merely by producing images, POB was not really enhancing intellectual access to the material. Nevertheless, not wishing to overemphasize the opposition between imaging and full text, WATERS stated that POB views getting the images as a first step toward possibly converting to full text through character recognition, if the technology is appropriate. WATERS also emphasized that encoding is involved even with a set of images.

SPERBERG-McQUEEN agreed with WATERS that one can create an SGML doc.u.ment consisting wholly of images. At first sight, organizing graphic images with an SGML doc.u.ment may not seem to offer great advantages, but the advantages of the scheme WATERS described would be precisely that ability to move into something that is more of a multimedia doc.u.ment: a combination of transcribed text and page images. WEIBEL concurred in this judgment, offering evidence from Project ADAPT, where a page is divided into text elements and graphic elements, and in fact the text elements are organized by columns and lines. These lines may be used as the basis for distributing doc.u.ments in a network environment. As one develops software intelligent enough to recognize what those elements are, it makes sense to apply SGML to an image initially, that may, in fact, ultimately become more and more text, either through OCR or edited OCR or even just through keying. For WATERS, the labor of composing the doc.u.ment and saying this set of doc.u.ments or this set of images belongs to this doc.u.ment const.i.tutes a significant investment.

WEIBEL also made the point that the AAP tag sets, while not excessively prescriptive, offer a common starting point; they do not define the structure of the doc.u.ments, though. They have some recommendations about DTDs one could use as examples, but they do just suggest tag sets. For example, the CORE project attempts to use the AAP markup as much as possible, but there are clearly areas where structure must be added.

That in no way contradicts the use of AAP tag sets.

SPERBERG-McQUEEN noted that the TEI prepared a long working paper early on about the AAP tag set and what it lacked that the TEI thought it needed, and a fairly long critique of the naming conventions, which has led to a very different style of naming in the TEI. He stressed the importance of the opposition between prescriptive markup, the kind that a publisher or anybody can do when producing doc.u.ments de novo, and descriptive markup, in which one has to take what the text carrier provides. In these particular tag sets it is easy to overemphasize this opposition, because the AAP tag set is extremely flexible. Even if one just used the DTDs, they allow almost anything to appear almost anywhere.

SESSION VI. COPYRIGHT ISSUES

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ PETERS * Several cautions concerning copyright in an electronic environment * Review of copyright law in the United States * The notion of the public good and the desirability of incentives to promote it *

What copyright protects * Works not protected by copyright * The rights of copyright holders * Publishers' concerns in today's electronic environment * Compulsory licenses * The price of copyright in a digital medium and the need for cooperation * Additional clarifications * Rough justice oftentimes the outcome in numerous copyright matters * Copyright in an electronic society * Copyright law always only sets up the boundaries; anything can be changed by contract *

Marybeth PETERS, policy planning adviser to the Register of Copyrights, Library of Congress, made several general comments and then opened the floor to discussion of subjects of interest to the audience.

Having attended several sessions in an effort to gain a sense of what people did and where copyright would affect their lives, PETERS expressed the following cautions:

* If one takes and converts materials and puts them in new forms, then, from a copyright point of view, one is creating something and will receive some rights.

* However, if what one is converting already exists, a question immediately arises about the status of the materials in question.

* Putting something in the public domain in the United States offers some freedom from anxiety, but distributing it throughout the world on a network is another matter, even if one has put it in the public domain in the United States. Re foreign laws, very frequently a work can be in the public domain in the United States but protected in other countries. Thus, one must consider all of the places a work may reach, lest one unwittingly become liable to being faced with a suit for copyright infringement, or at least a letter demanding discussion of what one is doing.

PETERS reviewed copyright law in the United States. The U.S.

Const.i.tution effectively states that Congress has the power to enact copyright laws for two purposes: 1) to encourage the creation and dissemination of intellectual works for the good of society as a whole; and, significantly, 2) to give creators and those who package and disseminate materials the economic rewards that are due them.

Congress strives to strike a balance, which at times can become an emotional issue. The United States has never accepted the notion of the natural right of an author so much as it has accepted the notion of the public good and the desirability of incentives to promote it. This state of affairs, however, has created strains on the international level and is the reason for several of the differences in the laws that we have.

Today the United States protects almost every kind of work that can be called an expression of an author. The standard for gaining copyright protection is simply originality. This is a low standard and means that a work is not copied from something else, as well as shows a certain minimal amount of authorship. One can also acquire copyright protection for making a new version of preexisting material, provided it manifests some spark of creativity.

However, copyright does not protect ideas, methods, systems--only the way that one expresses those things. Nor does copyright protect anything that is mechanical, anything that does not involve choice, or criteria concerning whether or not one should do a thing. For example, the results of a process called declicking, in which one mechanically removes impure sounds from old recordings, are not copyrightable. On the other hand, the choice to record a song digitally and to increase the sound of violins or to bring up the tympani const.i.tutes the results of conversion that are copyrightable. Moreover, if a work is protected by copyright in the United States, one generally needs the permission of the copyright owner to convert it. Normally, who will own the new--that is, converted- -material is a matter of contract. In the absence of a contract, the person who creates the new material is the author and owner. But people do not generally think about the copyright implications until after the fact. PETERS stressed the need when dealing with copyrighted works to think about copyright in advance. One's bargaining power is much greater up front than it is down the road.

PETERS next discussed works not protected by copyright, for example, any work done by a federal employee as part of his or her official duties is in the public domain in the United States. The issue is not wholly free of doubt concerning whether or not the work is in the public domain outside the United States. Other materials in the public domain include: any works published more than seventy-five years ago, and any work published in the United States more than twenty-eight years ago, whose copyright was not renewed. In talking about the new technology and putting material in a digital form to send all over the world, PETERS cautioned, one must keep in mind that while the rights may not be an issue in the United States, they may be in different parts of the world, where most countries previously employed a copyright term of the life of the author plus fifty years.

PETERS next reviewed the economics of copyright holding. Simply, economic rights are the rights to control the reproduction of a work in any form. They belong to the author, or in the case of a work made for hire, the employer. The second right, which is critical to conversion, is the right to change a work. The right to make new versions is perhaps one of the most significant rights of authors, particularly in an electronic world. The third right is the right to publish the work and the right to disseminate it, something that everyone who deals in an electronic medium needs to know. The basic rule is if a copy is sold, all rights of distribution are extinguished with the sale of that copy.

The key is that it must be sold. A number of companies overcome this obstacle by leasing or renting their product. These companies argue that if the material is rented or leased and not sold, they control the uses of a work. The fourth right, and one very important in a digital world, is a right of public performance, which means the right to show the work sequentially. For example, copyright owners control the showing of a CD-ROM product in a public place such as a public library. The reverse side of public performance is something called the right of public display. Moral rights also exist, which at the federal level apply only to very limited visual works of art, but in theory may apply under contract and other principles. Moral rights may include the right of an author to have his or her name on a work, the right of attribution, and the right to object to distortion or mutilation--the right of integrity.

The way copyright law is worded gives much lat.i.tude to activities such as preservation; to use of material for scholarly and research purposes when the user does not make multiple copies; and to the generation of facsimile copies of unpublished works by libraries for themselves and other libraries. But the law does not allow anyone to become the distributor of the product for the entire world. In today's electronic environment, publishers are extremely concerned that the entire world is networked and can obtain the information desired from a single copy in a single library. Hence, if there is to be only one sale, which publishers may choose to live with, they will obtain their money in other ways, for example, from access and use. Hence, the development of site licenses and other kinds of agreements to cover what publishers believe they should be compensated for. Any solution that the United States takes today has to consider the international arena.

Noting that the United States is a member of the Berne Convention and subscribes to its provisions, PETERS described the permissions process.

She also defined compulsory licenses. A compulsory license, of which the United States has had a few, builds into the law the right to use a work subject to certain terms and conditions. In the international arena, however, the ability to use compulsory licenses is extremely limited.

Thus, clearinghouses and other collectives comprise one option that has succeeded in providing for use of a work. Often overlooked when one begins to use copyrighted material and put products together is how expensive the permissions process and managing it is. According to PETERS, the price of copyright in a digital medium, whatever solution is worked out, will include managing and a.s.sembling the database. She strongly recommended that publishers and librarians or people with various backgrounds cooperate to work out administratively feasible systems, in order to produce better results.