The critical point for repositories is to obtain the *source* copy of the
deposited item, exactly as the author created it. This is important for
preservation and other purposes. Whatever pdf is good for, it is not a
source format, but a transformation format. If you obtain the source
version, whether that is from an open source application or is an open
format or not, you have more chance to transform it into something
appropriate for the required purpose.
We know some repositories demand pdfs from authors, but not necessarily the
source version too. This may be done with preservation in mind, but it is
not good even from a preservation perspective. The need for preservation is
an original source copy - representing the author's intent - and then to
document any transformations. If you ask authors to deposit pdf without
source, immediately you have an undocumented transformation and have
reduced your later options.
You won't be able to change author habits and practices very quickly, but
you can transform a source format instantly.
Steve Hitchcock
Preserv Project Manager
IAM Group, School of Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 3256 Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 2865
http://preserv.eprints.org/
At 10:57 12/12/2006, Brian Kelly wrote:
>Hi Les
> I'm with Falk on this one.
> Rather than "we should continue making PDFs open access with all our
>energy" I would argue that we should ensure that papers are made available
>in open formats (such XHTML) wherever possible, and regard PDFs as a tainted
>compromise (although the ISO PDF-A format can be useful as a preservation
>standard).
> As well as the technical and interoperability benefits that open and
>Web-native formats can provide, there is also a need (indeed, legal
>requirement) to address issues such as accessibility. Indeed you touch on
>this in your comment:
>
>""True Open Access" is a hitherto unidentified specialisation of "Open
>Access". The latter simply requires research outputs to be accessible to
>everyone, without let or hindrance, now or in the future." "Without let or
>hindrance" surely included access to people with disabilities?
>
> The WAI WCAG guidelines state:
>
>3.2 Create documents that validate to published formal grammars. [Priority
>2]
>11.1 Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a task
>and use the latest versions when supported. [Priority 2]
>11.4 If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page, provide a
>link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is accessible, has
>equivalent information (or functionality), and is updated as often as the
>inaccessible (original) page. [Priority 1]
>http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/
>
>This doesn't seem very PDF-friendly.
>
>Note that although WAI compliance is a legal requirement in various contexts
>I (and others) have argued that the WAI model and WCAG guidelines have
>fundamental flaws (and UK legislation, unlike that in other countries,
>provides us with some degree of flexibility - we need to take reasonable
>measures to ensure people with disabilities aren't discriminated against
>unfairly, whereas legislation on other countries mandates WCAG compliance).
>Our most recent papers are:
>
>Contextual Web Accessibility - Maximizing the Benefit of Accessibility
>Guidelines
>Sloan, D, Kelly, B., Heath, A., Petrie, H., Hamilton, F and Phipps, L. WWW
>2006 Edinburgh, Scotland 22-26 May 2006. Conference Proceedings, Special
>Interest Tracks, Posters and Workshops (CD ROM).
><http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/w4a-2006/>
>
>Forcing Standardization or Accommodating Diversity? A Framework for Applying
>the WCAG in the Real World
>Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Phipps, L., Petrie, H. and Hamilton, F. Proceedings of
>the 2005 International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility
>(W4A). ISBN: 1-59593-036-1.
><http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/w4a-2005/>
>
>Our approach (which, in part, is being addressed in the WCAG 2.0 guidelines)
>argues that WAI should be neutral about technologies, as proprietary formats
>(such as PDF, Flash, MS Word, etc.) can be accessible. However there is
>still a need to ensure that the formats ARE accessible - and it is not clear
>to me how the workflow processes will ensure that PDFs will contain ALT text
>for images and the structural information needed for assistive technologies
>to work correctly.
>
>Surely if institutions need to handcraft PDFs in order to comply with
>accessibility guidelines, it would be a more effective use of resources to
>do this on the open format? Or perhaps I've missed these 'easy to use
>tools' you refer to.
>
>Brian
>--------------------------------
>Brian Kelly
>UKOLN, University of Bath, BATH, UK, BA2 7AY
>Email: [log in to unmask]
>Phone: +44 1225 383943
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
> From: Leslie Carr [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 10 December 2006 11:29
> Subject: Re: PLoS business models, global village
>
>
> On 10 Dec 2006, at 08:27, Falk Huettmann wrote:
>
> Am I correct to say that PDFs are not part
>of true OpenAccess (raw data, shared analysis) and should be fully
>abandoned/replaced ASAP ?
> "True Open Access" is a hitherto unidentified
>specialisation of "Open Access". The latter simply requires research outputs
>to be accessible to everyone, without let or hindrance, now or in the
>future.
>
> Perhaps you are suggesting that PDFs are not an optimal information
>exchange vehicle - and many people (data miners) would agree with you.
>However, PDF files are the majority means of dissemination, and while we
>await the Next Great interoperability format (presumably based on XML)
>together with the easy-to-use tools to go with it, we should continue making
>PDFs open access with all our energy.
> --
> Les Carr
|