Workshop on Electronic Texts · Library of Congress
SESSION II. SHOW AND TELL
BARONAS illustrated the procedures of TC l7l, which covers all aspects of image management. When AIIM's national program has conceptualized a new project, it is usually submitted to the international level, so that the member countries of TC l7l can simultaneously work on the development of the standard or the technical report. BARONAS also illustrated a classic microfilm standard, MS23, which deals with numerous imaging concepts that apply to electronic imaging. Originally developed in the l970s, revised in the l980s, and revised again in l991, this standard is scheduled for another revision. MS23 is an active standard whereby users may propose new density ranges and new methods of evaluating film images in the standard's revision. BARONAS detailed several electronic image-management standards, for instance, ANSI/AIIM MS44, a quality-control guideline for scanning 8.5" by 11" black-and-white office documents. This standard is used with the IEEE fax image--a continuous tone photographic image with gray scales, text, and several continuous tone pictures--and AIIM test target number 2, a representative document used in office document management.
BARONAS next outlined the four categories of EIM standardization in which AIIM standards are being developed: transfer and retrieval, evaluation, optical disc and document scanning applications, and design and conversion of documents. She detailed several of the main projects of each: 1) in the category of image transfer and retrieval, a bi-level image transfer format, ANSI/AIIM MS53, which is a proposed standard that describes a file header for image transfer between unlike systems when the images are compressed using G3 and G4 compression; 2) the category of image evaluation, which includes the AIIM-proposed TR26 tutorial on image resolution (this technical report will treat the differences and similarities between classical or photographic and electronic imaging); 3) design and conversion, which includes a proposed technical report called "Forms Design Optimization for EIM" (this report considers how general-purpose business forms can be best designed so that scanning is optimized; reprographic characteristics such as type, rules, background, tint, and color will likewise be treated in the technical report); 4) disk and document scanning applications includes a project a) on planning platters and disk management, b) on generating an application profile for EIM when images are stored and distributed on CD-ROM, and c) on evaluating SCSI2, and how a common command set can be generated for SCSI2 so that document scanners are more easily integrated. (ANSI/AIIM MS53 will also apply to compressed images.)
BATTIN argued that standards are a double-edged sword for those concerned with the preservation of the human record, that is, the provision of access to recorded knowledge in a multitude of media as far into the future as possible. Standards are essential to facilitate interconnectivity and access, but, BATTIN said, as LYNCH pointed out yesterday, if set too soon they can hinder creativity, expansion of capability, and the broadening of access. The characteristics of standards for digital imagery differ radically from those for analog imagery. And the nature of digital technology implies continuing volatility and change. To reiterate, precipitous standard-setting can inhibit creativity, but delayed standard-setting results in chaos. Since in BATTIN'S opinion the near-term prognosis for reliable archival standards, as defined by librarians in the analog world, is poor, two alternatives remain: standing pat with the old technology, or reconceptualizing. Preservation concerns for electronic media fall into two general domains. One is the continuing assurance of access to knowledge originally generated, stored, disseminated, and used in electronic form. This domain contains several subdivisions, including 1) the closed, proprietary systems discussed the previous day, bundled information such as electronic journals and government agency records, and electronically produced or captured raw data; and 2) the application of digital technologies to the reformatting of materials originally published on a deteriorating analog medium such as acid paper or videotape.
The preservation of electronic media requires a reconceptualizing of our preservation principles during a volatile, standardless transition which may last far longer than any of us envision today. BATTIN urged the necessity of shifting focus from assessing, measuring, and setting standards for the permanence of the medium to the concept of managing continuing access to information stored on a variety of media and requiring a variety of ever-changing hardware and software for access--a fundamental shift for the library profession. BATTIN offered a primer on how to move forward with reasonable confidence in a world without standards. Her comments fell roughly into two sections: 1) standards in the real world and 2) the politics of reproduction. In regard to real-world standards, BATTIN argued the need to redefine the concept of archive and to begin to think in terms of life cycles. In the past, the naive assumption that paper would last forever produced a cavalier attitude toward life cycles. The transient nature of the electronic media has compelled people to recognize and accept upfront the concept of life cycles in place of permanency. Digital standards have to be developed and set in a cooperative context to ensure efficient exchange of information. Moreover, during this transition period, greater flexibility concerning how concepts such as backup copies and archival copies in the CXP are defined is necessary, or the opportunity to move forward will be lost.
In terms of cooperation, particularly in the university setting, BATTIN also argued the need to avoid going off in a hundred different directions. The CPA has catalyzed a small group of universities called the La Guardia Eight--because La Guardia Airport is where meetings take place--Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Princeton, Penn State, Tennessee, Stanford, and USC, to develop a digital preservation consortium to look at all these issues and develop de facto standards as we move along, instead of waiting for something that is officially blessed. Continuing to apply analog values and definitions of standards to the digital environment, BATTIN said, will effectively lead to forfeiture of the benefits of digital technology to research and scholarship. Under the second rubric, the politics of reproduction, BATTIN reiterated an oft-made argument concerning the electronic library, namely, that it is more difficult to transform than to create, and nowhere is that belief expressed more dramatically than in the conversion of brittle books to new media. Preserving information published in electronic media involves making sure the information remains accessible and that digital information is not lost through reproduction. In the analog world of photocopies and microfilm, the issue of fidelity to the original becomes paramount, as do issues of "Whose fidelity?" and "Whose original?"
BATTIN elaborated these arguments with a few examples from a recent study conducted by the CPA on the problems of preserving text and image. Discussions with scholars, librarians, and curators in a variety of disciplines dependent on text and image generated a variety of concerns, for example: 1) Copy what is, not what the technology is capable of. This is very important for the history of ideas. Scholars wish to know what the author saw and worked from. And make available at the workstation the opportunity to erase all the defects and enhance the presentation. 2) The fidelity of reproduction--what is good enough, what can we afford, and the difference it makes--issues of subjective versus objective resolution. 3) The differences between primary and secondary users. Restricting the definition of primary user to the one in whose discipline the material has been published runs one headlong into the reality that these printed books have had a host of other users from a host of other disciplines, who not only were looking for very different things, but who also shared values very different from those of the primary user. 4) The relationship of the standard of reproduction to new capabilities of scholarship--the browsing standard versus an archival standard. How good must the archival standard be? Can a distinction be drawn between potential users in setting standards for reproduction? Archival storage, use copies, browsing copies--ought an attempt to set standards even be made? 5) Finally, costs. How much are we prepared to pay to capture absolute fidelity? What are the trade-offs between vastly enhanced access, degrees of fidelity, and costs?
These standards, BATTIN concluded, serve to complicate further the reproduction process, and add to the long list of technical standards that are necessary to ensure widespread access. Ways to articulate and analyze the costs that are attached to the different levels of standards must be found. Given the chaos concerning standards, which promises to linger for the foreseeable future, BATTIN urged adoption of the following general principles: * Strive to understand the changing information requirements of scholarly disciplines as more and more technology is integrated into the process of research and scholarly communication in order to meet future scholarly needs, not to build for the past. Capture deteriorating information at the highest affordable resolution, even though the dissemination and display technologies will lag. * Develop cooperative mechanisms to foster agreement on protocols for document structure and other interchange mechanisms necessary for widespread dissemination and use before official standards are set. * Accept that, in a transition period, de facto standards will have to be developed. * Capture information in a way that keeps all options open and provides for total convertibility: OCR, scanning of microfilm, producing microfilm from scanned documents, etc. * Work closely with the generators of information and the builders of networks and databases to ensure that continuing accessibility is a primary concern from the beginning. * Piggyback on standards under development for the broad market, and avoid library-specific standards; work with the vendors, in order to take advantage of that which is being standardized for the rest of the world.
Concerning data flow, Bellcore receives microfilm and paper from ACS; the microfilm is scanned by outside vendors, while the paper is scanned inhouse on an Improvision scanner, twenty pages per minute at 300 dpi, which provides sufficient quality for all practical uses. LESK would prefer to have more gray level, because one of the ACS journals prints on some colored pages, which creates a problem. Bellcore performs all this scanning, creates a page-image file, and also selects from the pages the graphics, to mix with the text file (which is discussed later in the Workshop). The user is always searching the ASCII file, but she or he may see a display based on the ASCII or a display based on the images. LESK illustrated how the program performs page analysis, and the image interface. (The user types several words, is presented with a list-- usually of the titles of articles contained in an issue--that derives from the ASCII, clicks on an icon and receives an image that mirrors an ACS page.) LESK also illustrated an alternative interface, based on text on the ASCII, the so-called SuperBook interface from Bellcore. LESK next presented the results of an experiment conducted by Dennis Egan and involving thirty-six students at Cornell, one third of them undergraduate chemistry majors, one third senior undergraduate chemistry majors, and one third graduate chemistry students. A third of them received the paper journals, the traditional paper copies and chemical abstracts on paper. A third received image displays of the pictures of the pages, and a third received the text display with pop-up graphics.
The students were given several questions made up by some chemistry professors. The questions fell into five classes, ranging from very easy to very difficult, and included questions designed to simulate browsing as well as a traditional information retrieval-type task. LESK furnished the following results. In the straightforward question search--the question being, what is the phosphorus oxygen bond distance and hydroxy phosphate?--the students were told that they could take fifteen minutes and, then, if they wished, give up. The students with paper took more than fifteen minutes on average, and yet most of them gave up. The students with either electronic format, text or image, received good scores in reasonable time, hardly ever had to give up, and usually found the right answer. In the browsing study, the students were given a list of eight topics, told to imagine that an issue of the Journal of the American Chemical Society had just appeared on their desks, and were also told to flip through it and to find topics mentioned in the issue. The average scores were about the same. (The students were told to answer yes or no about whether or not particular topics appeared.) The errors, however, were quite different. The students with paper rarely said that something appeared when it had not. But they often failed to find something actually mentioned in the issue. The computer people found numerous things, but they also frequently said that a topic was mentioned when it was not. (The reason, of course, was that they were performing word searches. They were finding that words were mentioned and they were concluding that they had accomplished their task.)
This question also contained a trick to test the issue of serendipity. The students were given another list of eight topics and instructed, without taking a second look at the journal, to recall how many of this new list of eight topics were in this particular issue. This was an attempt to see if they performed better at remembering what they were not looking for. They all performed about the same, paper or electronics, about 62 percent accurate. In short, LESK said, people were not very good when it came to serendipity, but they were no worse at it with computers than they were with paper. (LESK gave a parenthetical illustration of the learning curve of students who used SuperBook.) The students using the electronic systems started off worse than the ones using print, but by the third of the three sessions in the series had caught up to print. As one might expect, electronics provide a much better means of finding what one wants to read; reading speeds, once the object of the search has been found, are about the same. Almost none of the students could perform the hard task--the analogous transformation. (It would require the expertise of organic chemists to complete.) But an interesting result was that the students using the text search performed terribly, while those using the image system did best. That the text search system is driven by text offers the explanation. Everything is focused on the text; to see the pictures, one must press on an icon. Many students found the right article containing the answer to the question, but they did not click on the icon to bring up the right figure and see it. They did not know that they had found the right place, and thus got it wrong.
The short answer demonstrated by this experiment was that in the event one does not know what to read, one needs the electronic systems; the electronic systems hold no advantage at the moment if one knows what to read, but neither do they impose a penalty. LESK concluded by commenting that, on one hand, the image system was easy to use. On the other hand, the text display system, which represented twenty man-years of work in programming and polishing, was not winning, because the text was not being read, just searched. The much easier system is highly competitive as well as remarkably effective for the actual chemists. ****** +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ERWAY * Most challenging aspect of working on AM * Assumptions guiding AM's approach * Testing different types of service bureaus * AM's requirement for 99.95 percent accuracy * Requirements for text-coding * Additional factors influencing AM's approach to coding * Results of AM's experience with rekeying * Other problems in dealing with service bureaus * Quality control the most time-consuming aspect of contracting out conversion * Long-term outlook uncertain * +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ To Ricky ERWAY, associate coordinator, American Memory, Library of Congress, the constant variety of conversion projects taking place simultaneously represented perhaps the most challenging aspect of working on AM. Thus, the challenge was not to find a solution for text conversion but a tool kit of solutions to apply to LC's varied collections that need to be converted. ERWAY limited her remarks to the process of converting text to machine-readable form, and the variety of LC's text collections, for example, bound volumes, microfilm, and handwritten manuscripts.
Two assumptions have guided AM's approach, ERWAY said: 1) A desire not to perform the conversion inhouse. Because of the variety of formats and types of texts, to capitalize the equipment and have the talents and skills to operate them at LC would be extremely expensive. Further, the natural inclination to upgrade to newer and better equipment each year made it reasonable for AM to focus on what it did best and seek external conversion services. Using service bureaus also allowed AM to have several types of operations take place at the same time. 2) AM was not a technology project, but an effort to improve access to library collections. Hence, whether text was converted using OCR or rekeying mattered little to AM. What mattered were cost and accuracy of results. AM considered different types of service bureaus and selected three to perform several small tests in order to acquire a sense of the field. The sample collections with which they worked included handwritten correspondence, typewritten manuscripts from the 1940s, and eighteenth-century printed broadsides on microfilm. On none of these samples was OCR performed; they were all rekeyed. AM had several special requirements for the three service bureaus it had engaged. For instance, any errors in the original text were to be retained. Working from bound volumes or anything that could not be sheet-fed also constituted a factor eliminating companies that would have performed OCR.
AM requires 99.95 percent accuracy, which, though it sounds high, often means one or two errors per page. The initial batch of test samples contained several handwritten materials for which AM did not require text-coding. The results, ERWAY reported, were in all cases fairly comparable: for the most part, all three service bureaus achieved 99.95 percent accuracy. AM was satisfied with the work but surprised at the cost. As AM began converting whole collections, it retained the requirement for 99.95 percent accuracy and added requirements for text-coding. AM needed to begin performing work more than three years ago before LC requirements for SGML applications had been established. Since AM's goal was simply to retain any of the intellectual content represented by the formatting of the document (which would be lost if one performed a straight ASCII conversion), AM used "SGML-like" codes. These codes resembled SGML tags but were used without the benefit of document-type definitions. AM found that many service bureaus were not yet SGML-proficient. Additional factors influencing the approach AM took with respect to coding included: 1) the inability of any known microcomputer-based user-retrieval software to take advantage of SGML coding; and 2) the multiple inconsistencies in format of the older documents, which confirmed AM in its desire not to attempt to force the different formats to conform to a single document-type definition (DTD) and thus create the need for a separate DTD for each document.
The five text collections that AM has converted or is in the process of converting include a collection of eighteenth-century broadsides, a collection of pamphlets, two typescript document collections, and a collection of 150 books. ERWAY next reviewed the results of AM's experience with rekeying, noting again that because the bulk of AM's materials are historical, the quality of the text often does not lend itself to OCR. While non-English speakers are less likely to guess or elaborate or correct typos in the original text, they are also less able to infer what we would; they also are nearly incapable of converting handwritten text. Another disadvantage of working with overseas keyers is that they are much less likely to telephone with questions, especially on the coding, with the result that they develop their own rules as they encounter new situations. Government contracting procedures and time frames posed a major challenge to performing the conversion. Many service bureaus are not accustomed to retaining the image, even if they perform OCR. Thus, questions of image format and storage media were somewhat novel to many of them. ERWAY also remarked other problems in dealing with service bureaus, for example, their inability to perform text conversion from the kind of microfilm that LC uses for preservation purposes.
But quality control, in ERWAY's experience, was the most time-consuming aspect of contracting out conversion. AM has been attempting to perform a 10-percent quality review, looking at either every tenth document or every tenth page to make certain that the service bureaus are maintaining 99.95 percent accuracy. But even if they are complying with the requirement for accuracy, finding errors produces a desire to correct them and, in turn, to clean up the whole collection, which defeats the purpose to some extent. Even a double entry requires a character-by-character comparison to the original to meet the accuracy requirement. LC is not accustomed to publish imperfect texts, which makes attempting to deal with the industry standard an emotionally fraught issue for AM. As was mentioned in the previous day's discussion, going from 99.95 to 99.99 percent accuracy usually doubles costs and means a third keying or another complete run-through of the text. Although AM has learned much from its experiences with various collections and various service bureaus, ERWAY concluded pessimistically that no breakthrough has been achieved. Incremental improvements have occurred in some of the OCR technology, some of the processes, and some of the standards acceptances, which, though they may lead to somewhat lower costs, do not offer much encouragement to many people who are anxiously awaiting the day that the entire contents of LC are available on-line.
ZIDAR next rehearsed several typical problems encountered during editing. Praising the celerity of her student workers, ZIDAR observed that editing requires approximately five to ten minutes per page, assuming that there are no large tables to audit. Confusion among the three characters I, 1, and l, constitutes perhaps the most common problem encountered. Zeroes and O's also are frequently confused. Double M's create a particular problem, even on clean pages. They are so wide in most fonts that they touch, and the system simply cannot tell where one letter ends and the other begins. Complex page formats occasionally fail to columnate properly, which entails rescanning as though one were working with a single column, entering the ASCII, and decolumnating for better searching. With proportionally spaced text, OCR can have difficulty discerning what is a space and what are merely spaces between letters, as opposed to spaces between words, and therefore will merge text or break up words where it should not. ZIDAR said that it can often take longer to edit a poor-copy OCR than to key it from scratch. NAL has also experimented with partial editing of text, whereby project workers go into and clean up the format, removing stray characters but not running a spell-check. NAL corrects typos in the title and authors' names, which provides a foothold for searching and browsing. Even extremely poor-quality OCR (e.g., 60-percent accuracy) can still be searched, because numerous words are correct, while the important words are probably repeated often enough that they are likely to be found correct somewhere. Librarians, however, cannot tolerate this situation, though end users seem more willing to use this text for searching, provided that NAL indicates that it is unedited. ZIDAR concluded that rekeying of text may be the best route to take, in spite of numerous problems with quality control and cost.
Concerning the four projects undertaken by NAL, two inside and two performed by outside contractors, ZIDAR revealed that an in-house service bureau executed the first at a cost between $8 and $10 per page for everything, including building of the database. The project undertaken by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) cost approximately $10 per page for the conversion, plus some expenses for the software and building of the database. The Acid Rain Project--a two-disk set produced by the University of Vermont, consisting of Canadian publications on acid rain--cost $6.70 per page for everything, including keying of the text, which was double keyed, scanning of the images, and building of the database. The in-house project offered considerable ease of convenience and greater control of the process. On the other hand, the service bureaus know their job and perform it expeditiously, because they have more people. As a useful comparison, ERWAY revealed AM's costs as follows: $0.75 cents to $0.85 cents per thousand characters, with an average page containing 2,700 characters. Requirements for coding and imaging increase the costs. Thus, conversion of the text, including the coding, costs approximately $3 per page. (This figure does not include the imaging and database-building included in the NAL costs.) AM also enjoyed a happy experience with Federal Prison Industries, which precluded the necessity of going through the request-for-proposal process to award a contract, because it is another government agency. The prisoners performed AM's rekeying just as well as other service bureaus and proved handy as well. AM shipped them the books, which they would photocopy on a book-edge scanner. They would perform the markup on photocopies, return the books as soon as they were done with them, perform the keying, and return the material to AM on WORM disks.
Ideas discussed in this chapter
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.