At Mon, 6 Aug 2012 12:02:33 -0400,
Dot Porter wrote:
> I really like differentiating between "digital" editions
> (purpose-built to be used digitally) and "digitized" editions
Somewhat of a tangent maybe, but have you ever noticed how hard it can
be to convey to laypersons the difference between an *image* of some
text and real computer editable text? (Or similarly between a word
processor file format, for example, and plain text?) Partly the
problem is to do with having a good, well-understood term for this
computer editable text. Describing the idea of a one-to-one mapping
between characters in the text and bytes in the computer's store
doesn't really cut it (especially as this, in fact, is only any good
for the 26 letters of the modern Latin alphabet). This problem
presents itself when trying to describe OCR, especially as part of a
research process in documents such as grant proposals. The distinction
is, I think, quite similar to that between digitised (image of text)
and digital (plain, editable text).
Richard
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Richard Lewis
ISMS, Computing
Goldsmiths, University of London
t: +44 (0)20 7078 5134
j: [log in to unmask]
@: lewisrichard
s: richardjlewis
http://www.richardlewis.me.uk/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|