From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 20:45:21 -0700 Sandy, this doesn't sound like the traditional codex book. It also doesn't sound like anything anybody has been able to create till now. So instead of the e-book and instead of the e-post-book, we have the e-papyrus-scroll. It represents an advance in ease of access and portability and a big retreat in functionality. It's an area where the for-profit sector has little incentive to innovate. Perfect opportunity for the university press community. Jim O'Donnell ASU On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 4:18 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 23:43:48 -0500 > > The kind of document Darnton described (following Cornell librarian > Ross Atkinson) is far more multidirectional, multilayered, and > interactive than any codex book could ever be. This is how I described > what Atkinson had in mind in my ATG essay: > > His term for this "new kind" of document structure is "concentric > stratification," which "might consist of a top level that would > contain some kind of extended abstract; this level or stratum would > then be connected to the next level, and so on. Each succeeding level > would contain the information in the previous level, but would provide > in addition greater degrees of substance and detail. Scholarly > communications that would require an extended context, and would > therefore deserve a monograph in the paper environment, would in the > online environment merely include more levels than would a > communication that would in a print environment have been published as > a journal article." As hinted here, Atkinson sees electronic > publishing as breaking down the dichotomy between monographs and > journal articles, and he also sees reading shifting from a linear form > to something "that is done, so to speak, in three dimensions: first, > one can read horizontally or linearly within any level of a given > publication; second, one can read vertically or hierarchically through > the levels of any particular publication; and, third, one can read > referentially back through the constituent citations (be these > explicit or implicit) into other texts on the network." > > It struck me that this approach could open up wonderful opportunities > to make available often esoteric research to a variety of audiences, > ranging from lay people and journalists wanting basic information > about new research results in down-to-earth language to highly trained > specialists who want every last detail including references to data on > which the results reported are based-and everyone in between. If this > were to become the future path of scholarly publishing, I could > readily envisage roles for university editors, reference librarians, > and public information staff-not to mention computer experts-to play > in creating such multifaceted, multilayered documents. > > Does this sound like the traditional codex book? > > Sandy Thatcher > > > > From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 19:35:10 -0400 > > Sandy, I'm going to disagree LOUDLY with your assertion that the book > is a linear document with a beginning, middle, and end. If it were, > I'd be a happy camper with Kindles and Nooks and PDFs. The codex book > for sixteen hundred years has been a profoundly nonlinear document, > with lots of easy flipping back and forth, cross-references, indices, > tables of contents, illustrations tipped in together in one section, > maps constantly harked back to for ready reference, footnotes, even > (SHUDDER!) the endnotes that publishers think people prefer, > bibliographies, and the like. What we have now in digital form is the > electronic papyrus scroll: start at the beginning and follow it > slavishly through to the end. If some smart puppy invents something > in which the electronic representation does *not* represent a > significant step back from the codex, I'll be delighted. The > opportunity is there for the grasping. > > Jim O'Donnell