[bksvol-discuss] Re: ark files waiting validation

Hey Kaitlyn,
    You can definitely do that, but just realize that it might take quite a
bit longer for those books to become part of the collection. Putting
something in a proprietary format limits the amount of people who can work
on your book, that's why the consensus on the list is that RTF is best.

    The only advantage to uploading in KES format anyways is that you can
include the scanned images. This could be useful if someday recognition
improved drastically, they could rerecognize the book. This however wouldn't
be necessary if you had already cleaned it up.

Hope this makes a little more sense behind both the lists and BookShares
reasoning.

Jake
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kaitlyn Hill" <Kaitlyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 12:21 AM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: ark files waiting validation


> The information I received when I joined recently  said to upload books I
> K1000 if they were scanned in that.
>
>
> Kaitlyn
> Level III Practitioner
> Reconnective healing and the Reconnection
> Level 1 Reiki healing
> Kaitlyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take but by the number
of
> moments that take your breath away:)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott Blanks
> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 10:56 AM
> To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: ark files waiting validation
>
> That's too bad.  And it's not like it would be hard for people who use
> Openbook to convert their books to .rtf before they submit.  I guess if
they
> don't know they can do it, they won't do it.  Do the volunteers who join
> Bookshare, and I'm asking because I can't remember myself, get specific
> instructions encouraging .rtf submissions whenever possible, including
using
> OpenBook or Kurzweil?
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Silvara <mailto:silvara@xxxxxxx>
> To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 4:41 PM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: ark files waiting validation
>
> Hi Scott:
> You can't do that because you'd have to resubmit the book and so the
> original person who submitted it wouldn't get the credit. And also you'd
> have to reject the ark.
> Many of the ark file are text books. I really dislike validating
> those. However, I try to validate 1 text book amonth.
> I just validated a book about Crumwell. It took some time because it
> wasn't scanned with 2 page mode, I had to add the page breaks.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Scott Blanks <mailto:scottsjb@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 1:36 PM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: ark files waiting validation
>
> I'll be honest, I've tried validating, and unless the book
> is something I like, I don't feel comfortable validating it.  That's why I
> usually scan, and then validate the same book.  My question is, could I
> download an ark file from the step 1 page and convert it to rtf and then
put
> it back on the step 1 page so that someone else might validate it?
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Silvara <mailto:silvara@xxxxxxx>
> To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 4:26 PM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: ark files waiting
> validation
>
> I also have openbook. So if there's an ark book on
> the download page that you're dying to read, let me know and I will
validate
> it. However, it may be after convention since I am going to the NFB
> convention.
> BTW, 1 of the books that I am working on is an ark.
> Lately I've ignored the arks and been doing txt.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Cheryl Fogle <mailto:cfogle@xxxxxxx>
> To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 2:07 PM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] ark files waiting
> validation
>
>
> Hi All.  I think from the scanning
> discussions most of us use kurzweil which means all those ark files from
> openbook can't be validated.  I think a good project for someone like
Gisela
> or any other openbook users would be to convert .ark to .rtf so more books
> can be validated.  I have an old version of open book v4.0 I think before
> switching to Kurzweil a few years ago.  I can't convert .ark files from
> newer versions of openbook.  In fact, the only reason I still have my old
> version is that I'm converting some personal and textbook files to .rtf.
I
> also save kurzweil files as .rtf so I can refer to them within word when
> writing papers or reports for school and work.
> Just some thoughts.
>
> Cheryl Fogle MA
> Ph.D. candidate in Anthropology, University
> of New Mexico
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database:
> 267.8.1/28 - Release Date: 6/24/2005
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.1/28 -
> Release Date: 6/24/2005
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.1/28 - Release
> Date: 6/24/2005
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.1/28 - Release Date:
> 6/24/2005
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.1/28 - Release Date: 6/24/2005
>
>

Other related posts: