Introduction
Survey and audit of current e-Humanities research in Australia and internationally
Opportunities for e-Humanities research in Australia
December 2003 workshop
Structure of the proposed Network
Report of the Print Cultures Network
Print Cultures Network: Annotated hyperlinks
Database
List of annotated hyperlinks
Participants in Special Research Initiative Projects
NEW MEDIA AND E-PUBLICATIONFacilitator - Ross Coleman |
||
What is e-publication? |
Narrowly, electronic version of a printed work; single channel publishing = electronic/print. Broadly, multimedia outputs, classified as "multi-channel publishing". |
|
Why do it? |
To have a single file for electronic use or for print. To minimise the work to have one production process, e.g. in 1996 Framemaker promised to do both - but doesn't. |
|
Text Formats |
For the Electronic Thesis Dissertation group, PDF holds sway. In the past they started to use SGML which could go either way, but now are returning to using XML. It is relatively easy to create XML and PDF conversions, but even so there is a need to be able to copy-edit at PDF stage in order to incorporate essential publication elements such as imprint page and ISBN details, title page, front matter, pagination, para-text, and to ensure font consistency. And there is also a need for the reverse: "Return to contents" - in electronic version. Primary [electronic] vs secondary publication [print] or vice versa. |
|
e-publication Workflow Example |
From the University of Sydney Press:
|
|
A Commercial Workflow Solutions |
At the Future of the Book conference, Common Ground Publishing claimed to have solved single channel workflow problems through development and use of the C-2-C system (based on ZOPE). They have gone to patent their markup language. Used open source software. C-2-C is an off the shelf product for small publishers and institutions and self publishers. It often work on basis of getting MS word documents and converting them to XML and then to PDF. The PDF created via this system is still not as good for design purposes as laying out the text in a program such as Quark XPress or InDesign: ie it does not achieve the typesetting standard traditionally demanded by commercial publishers. It is good enough however for 80% of work of academic publishing - for print monographs. The C-2-C system is actually about streamlining the processes - you can buy in at different levels. They are making money on the service not on the technology. Many universities are establishing e-presses. Nearly all have assessed C-2-C but have chosen other hybrid approaches because the workflows involved in academic editing are different. (How they are different is not entirely clear.) |
|
Hybrid Solutions |
Through SETIS, the University of Sydney built their own workflow management and e-commerce system in a couple of months based on existing IT infrastructure and capabilities. UQ Press has a marketing and payment ordering package, that is an IP management solution in itself. Bookweb booknet trade packages, e-commerce front end ANU e-press is going with a palm pilot format, an XML file. The next step will be producing electronic books for palm pilots. Nokia: text mapping and mobile phone - our link with Lonely Planet. |
|
BOTTLENECKS AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS |
|
|
1. Workflow< |
One big problem is the current word processing environment – getting structured content out of that into XML. There appear to be the beginnings of a solution coming: eg. Microsoft Word 2003 allows you to get a structured XML file. The Open Office suite supported by SUN Microsystems is a word processing tool which produces a very good XML format (well-formulated with heaps and heaps of XSSL style sheets). There's also now a TEI converter. Workflow now allows an ingestion of an ML file into TEI which hasn't been possible before. Representation is XSSL and so can be modified. Open Office can open up MS word files, retains most of style, has an inbuilt PDF editor, docbook, TEI. Doesn't handle bibliographic information at a fine level of detail. Tables are a pain at any level of detail. Legacy files: Quark and Pagemaker files are difficult to let go of because you're terrified about what you are going to lose. Adobe INDesign promises to import an XML file and map the INDesign features, and you can spit the sucker out according to a DTD. And you can do interactive PDFs with it. It doesn't handle renumbering of footnotes - you have to do it by hand. Could keep academics using Open Office to the last moment - export as XML, import into Adobe INDesign, printed out as proofs, and then imported. useful for high end academic publishing — those who are design sensitive can tell whether output comes from a desktop publishing package or not. |
|
2. Definition of Publication for Financial Rewards to Academic Units |
The DEST definition is very restrictive:
Authentication through e-presses: the rationale for e-presses is as a vehicle for new media, authenticating them for both scholarly and DEST purposes by editing and refereeing as well as providing a vehicle for PhD theses. |
|
3. Peer Review of Non-Monographs |
There is no critical apparatus for reviewing multimedia databases - we are in a "provisional transitional period". We have to say what the criteria for measuring the quality of these objects is so as to convince DEST etc of their validity. We have a clearer sense of what counts as a reason for publishing a monograph by CUP. Possible criterion: is it worth the money to archive it? Archiving costs money - both for print media (space) and for electronic media (migration). The Network could provide a refereeing service — it is getting harder to find referees and also thesis readers. Open peer review/ refereeing. The sciences crew are in an apoplectic state over refereeing — the current system depends on the "free labour" of referees, and they're beginning to say bugger off. Big publishers are making a fortune out of free academic labour. |
|
4. Informal Online Review Mechanisms |
BLOGs (WeBLOGs): if we think of publication as quality controlled, where do blogs fit in? Why do we care?
|
|