Proposal for Presentation The Network Services Conference (NSC) London, England, 28-30 November 1994
Name(s): Stevan Harnad Affiliation(s): University of Southampton E-mail address(es): har...@mail.soton.ac.uk Postal address(es): Department of Psychology and Cognitive Sciences Centre Title of presentation: PUBLICLY RETRIEVABLE FTP ARCHIVES FOR ESOTERIC SCIENCE AND SCHOLARSHIP: A SUBVERSIVE PROPOSAL Abstract: We have heard many predictions about the demise of paper publishing, but life is short and the inevitable day still seems a long way off. This is a subversive proposal that could radically hasten that day. It is applicable only to ESOTERIC (non-trade, no-market) scientific and scholarly publication (but that is the lion's share of the academic corpus anyway), namely, that body of work for which the author does not and never has expected to SELL his words. He wants only to PUBLISH them, that is, to reach the eyes of his peers, his fellow esoteric scientists and scholars the world over, so that they can build on one another's work in that collaborative enterprise called learned inquiry. For centuries, it was only out of reluctant necessity that authors of esoteric publications made the Faustian bargain to allow a price-tag to be erected as a barrier between their work and its (tiny) intended readership because that was the only way to make their work public in the era when paper publication (and its substantial real expenses) were the only way to do so. But today there is another way, and that is PUBLIC FTP: If every esoteric author in the world this very day established a globally accessible local ftp archive for every piece of esoteric writing he did from this day forward, the long-heralded transition from paper publication to purely electronic publication (of esoteric research) would follow suit almost immediately. The only two factors blocking it at the moment are (1) quality control (i.e., peer review and editing), which happen to be implemented today almost exclusively by paper publishers and (2) the patina of paper publishing, which results from this monopoly on quality control. If all scholars' preprints were universally available to all scholars by anonymous ftp (and gopher, and World-wide web, and the search/retrieval wonders of the future), NO scholar would ever consent to WITHDRAW that preprint from the public eye after the refereed version was accepted for paper "PUBLICation." Instead, everyone would, quite naturally, substitute the refereed, published reprint for the unrefereed preprint. Paper publishers will then either restructure themselves (with the cooperation of the scholarly community) so as to arrange for the minimal true costs and a fair return on electronic-only page costs (which I estimate to be less than 25% of paper-page costs, contrary to the 75% figure that appears in most current publishers' estimates) to be paid out of advance subsidies (from authors' page charges, learned society dues, university publication budgets and/or governmental publication subsidies) or they will have to watch as the peer community spawns a brand new generation of electronic-only publishers who will. The subversion will be complete, because the (esoteric -- no-market) literature will have taken to the airwaves, where it always belonged, and those airwaves will be free (to the benefit of us all) because their true minimal expenses will be covered the optimal way for the unimpeded flow of esoteric knowledge to all: In advance.
Biographical sketch (5-15 lines):
Stevan Harnad, Professor of Psychology and Director of the Cognitive Sciences Centre at University of Southampton UK, was born in Budapest, Hungary, grew up in Montreal, Canada, did his undergraduate work at McGill University and his Doctorate at Princeton University (in cognitive psychology). His research is on categorization and neural networks and on perception, cognition and language in general, on which he has written numerous articles and edited and contributed to several books. A further interest is "Scholarly Skywriting," a form of interactive electronic publication and communication that he has been actively involved in exploring and developing, and on which he has written several articles. He is Founder and Editor of two refereed journals, Behavioral and Brain Sciences and PSYCOLOQUY, the first paper (published by Cambridge University Press since 1978) and the second electronic (sponsored by the American Psychological Association since 1990).
The following files are retrievable from directory pub/harnad/Harnad on host princeton.edu (citation is followed by FILENAME and, where available, ABSTRACT):
Harnad, S. (1990) Scholarly Skywriting and the Prepublication Continuum of Scientific Inquiry. Psychological Science 1: 342 - 343 (reprinted in Current Contents 45: 9-13, November 11 1991). FILENAME: harnad90.skywriting
Harnad, S. (1991) Post-Gutenberg Galaxy: The Fourth Revolution in the Means of Production of Knowledge. Public-Access Computer Systems Review 2 (1): 39 - 53 (also reprinted in PACS Annual Review Volume 2 1992; and in R. D. Mason (ed.) Computer Conferencing: The Last Word. Beach Holme Publishers, 1992; and in A. L. Okerson (ed.) Directory of Electronic Journals, Newsletters, and Academic Discussion Lists, 2nd edition. Washington, DC, Association of Research Libraries, Office of Scientific & Academic Publishing, 1992). FILENAME: harnad91.postgutenberg
Harnad, S. (1992) Interactive Publication: Extending the American Physical Society's Discipline-Specific Model for Electronic Publishing. Serials Review, Special Issue on Economics Models for Electronic Publishing, pp. 58 - 61. FILENAME: harnad92.interactivpub
Harnad, S. (1994) Implementing Peer Review on the Net: Scientific Quality Control in Scholarly Electronic Journals. Proceedings of International Conference on Refereed Electronic Journals: Towards a Consortium for Networked Publications. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg 1-2 October 1993 (in press) FILENAME: harnad94.peer.review ABSTRACT: Electronic networks have made it possible for scholarly periodical publishing to shift from a trade model, in which the author sells his words through the mediation of the expensive and inefficient technology of paper, to a collaborative model, in which the much lower real costs and much broader reach of purely electronic publication are subsidized in advance, by universities, libraries, and the scholarly societies in each specialty. To take advantage of this, paper publishing's traditional quality control mechanism, peer review, will have to be implemented on the Net, thereby recreating the hierarchies of journals that allow authors, readers, and promotion committees to calibrate their judgments rationally -- or as rationally as traditional peer review ever allowed them to do it. The Net also offers the possibility of implementing peer review more efficiently and equitably, and of supplementing it with what is the Net's real revolutionary dimension: interactive publication in the form of open peer commentary on published work. Most of this "scholarly skywriting" likewise needs to be constrained by peer review, but there is room on the Net for unrefereed discussion too, both in high-level peer discussion forums to which only qualified specialists in a given field have read/write access and in the general electronic vanity press.
Hayes, P., Harnad, S., Perlis, D. & Block, N. (1992) Virtual Symposium on the Virtual Mind. Minds and Machines 2(3) 217-238. FILENAME: harnad92.virtualmind ABSTRACT: When certain formal symbol systems (e.g., computer programs) are implemented as dynamic physical symbol systems (e.g., when they are run on a computer) their activity can be interpreted at higher levels (e.g., binary code can be interpreted as LISP, LISP code can be interpreted as English, and English can be interpreted as a meaningful conversation). These higher levels of interpretability are called "virtual" systems. If such a virtual system is interpretable as if it had a mind, is such a "virtual mind" real? This is the question addressed in this "virtual" symposium, originally conducted electronically among four cognitive scientists: Donald Perlis, a computer scientist, argues that according to the computationalist thesis, virtual minds are real and hence Searle's Chinese Room Argument fails, because if Searle memorized and executed a program that could pass the Turing Test in Chinese he would have a second, virtual, Chinese-understanding mind of which he was unaware (as in multiple personality). Stevan Harnad, a psychologist, argues that Searle's Argument is valid, virtual minds are just hermeneutic overinterpretations, and symbols must be grounded in the real world of objects, not just the virtual world of interpretations. Computer scientist Patrick Hayes argues that Searle's Argument fails, but because Searle does not really implement the program: A real implementation must not be homuncular but mindless and mechanical, like a computer. Only then can it give rise to a mind at the virtual level. Philosopher Ned Block suggests that there is no reason a mindful implementation would not be a real one.
Re below, by all means post to a wide list of interested parties. I'd sincerely love to discover someone/somehow to reduce journal production costs so that a majority of our expenses were printing/paper-distribution.
Publications Division, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C. E-mail: lr...@acs.org Phone: (202) 872-4541 FAX (202) 872-4389
> Regarding the phrase "(which I estimate to be less than 25% of paper-page > costs, contrary to the 75% figure that appears in most current publishers' > estimates)" from your proposal below, do you mean that printing costs are 75% > of the total publishing costs? If so, I can assure you this is certainly > incorrect in scientific/technical publishing. Our experience at the American > Chemical Society is that printing and paper costs are about 15% of total > manufacturing costs and the "first copy", or prepress costs are about 85% of > the total. Could you clarify what you mean? I'd be very interested on what > basis you make your financial estimates.
> Lorrin R. Garson
Yes, in fact, the data you have often presented were among the ones I had in mind when I challenged the 75% figure (though many other publishers have come up with figures similar to yours 70-85%).
I challenge it on two bases, and they are these:
(1) The calculation according to which the "per-page" savings would be only 25%, leaving 75% still to be paid for is based on how much electronic processing will save in PAPER publication. The entire superstructure is set up to hurtle headlong toward print on paper, so if you recalculate that budget and leave out the print-run and a few other things, you find you're left with 75% of the original expenses. Solution? Exorcise everything having to do with going into paper, from the bottom up. Budget an electronic-ONLY journal, and the per-page cost will come out much, much lower (if anything, my 25% is an OVER-estimate).
To put it another way: Your way of doing the figures is rather like challenging the advantages of automobiles by calculating how much they would save on horse-feed.
(2) But, if that is not enough, I also speak from experience: I edit both a paper and an electronic journal. Although the two are not entirely comparable, and the paper one undeniably still has a much larger submission rate and annual page count, the true costs of the electronic one are an order of magnitude lower even making allowances for this. And this is not because anyone is working for free, or because the Net is giving the journal a free ride (it gives -- as I delight in showing audiences in (numerical) figures -- an incomparably bigger free ride to porno-graphics, flaming, and trivial pursuit, and THAT is much riper for being put onto a trade model than esoteric scholarly publication, the flea on the tail of the dog, which I believe we would all benefit from granting a free ride on the airwaves in perpetuum).
If we charged PSYCOLOQUY's readership (now estimated at 40,000) their share of the true costs, they would have to pay 25 cents per year (down from 50% a couple of years ago, as the readership grew and costs actually shrank; and thanks in part also to centralized subscriber-list handling at EARN, much of it automatized, as well as to developments such as gopher and world-wide-web, which are rapidly replacing the subscriber model by the browser model altogether in electronic publication).
PSYCOLOQUY is subsidized by the APA, which is also a large psychology paper publisher. I don't know what proportion of the APA's or ACS's publications are esoteric: I am NOT speaking about publications on which the author expects to make money from the sale of his text. But for that no-market portion of the literature, re-do your figures with the endpoint being a URL file in WWW for all those published articles. Reckon only the true costs of implementing peer review, processing manuscripts (electronically), editing, copy-editing, proof-reading, etc., and then finally electronic archiving and maintenance. I predict that you will be surprised by the outcome; but this cannot be reckoned by striking a few items from the ledger based on how you do things presently.
> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 16:28:49 +0100 > From: "Paul F. Burton" <p...@dis.strath.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: Subversive Proposal
> A note to thank you for the notice of your "subversive proposal", but why > be subversive about it? I've suggested at two conferences this year that > universities should take back the electronic publication of work done by > their staff (most of it research carried out with public funds), though I > have not been as direct as your proposal :-). My personal view is that > commercial publishers are running scared of electronic publishing, which is > why they seem to be involved in so many projects.
> It seems to me that this is an idea whose time has just arrived. Do you > think that the Follett Report proposals could include a feasibility study > of this? I'd be interested in discussing the idea further with you, if you > have time.
> BTW, I seem to have two addresses for you (Southampton and Princeton) so > I'm sending this to both, as I'd value your comments.
It is indeed a subversive proposal, and here's why: Many of us already share the DESIRE for electronic publication in place of paper; the question is, How to get there from here? Life is short. The subversion is in not trying to do it directly, by taking on the all-powerful paper flotilla head-on. Forget about electronic publishing. Leave the "publishing" to them. Simply archive your PREprints (on which you have not ceded copyright to anyone) in a public ftp archive. Let EVERYONE (or a critical mass) do that. And then nature will take its course. (Everyone will, quite naturally, swap the reprint for the preprint at the moment of acceptance for publication, and before paper publishers can mobilize to do anything about it, the battle will be lost, and they will be faced with an ultimatum: either re-tool NOW, so that you recover your real costs and a fair return by some means other than interposing a price-tag between [esoteric, no-market] papers and their intended readership, or others will step in and do it instead of you.)
This IS subversive. Direct appeals (whether to authors or to publishers) to "publish electronically" are not subversive; they have simply proven hopelessly slow. And at this rate (esoteric) paper publishers will be able to successfully prolong the status quo for well into the forseeable future -- to the eternal disadvantage of learned inquiry itself, which is the one that has been suffering most from this absurd Faustian bargain for the centuries that paper was the esoteric author's only existing expedient for PUBLICation at all.
Paper publishers, by the way, are, quite understandably, looking for much less radical solutions. These compromises are mostly in the category of "hybrid" publication (paper and electronic), and they share the fatal flaw of (esoteric -- remember, I am speaking only of esoteric, non-trade, no-market) paper publication: requiring a price for admission to a show that has virtually no audience, yet is essential to us all!
I have no animus against paper publishers. It's natural for them to do whatever they can to preserve the status quo, or something close to it. But necessity is the mother of invention, and my subversive proposal would awaken their creative survival skills. And if they wish to survive (in esoteric publication -- I cannot repeat this often enough: what I am proposing is NOT applicable to literature that actually has a market, one in which the author really has hopes of selling his words, and a market is interested in buying them, for there there is no Faustian pact; it is in the interests of BOTH parties, author and publisher, to charge admission at the door -- if, as I say, publishers wish to survive in ESOTERIC publication, they will have to change from a trade to a subsidy model for recovering the substantially lower true costs of electronic-ONLY publication).
My claim that the true per-page cost of electronic publication will be 25% of current per-page paper costs rather than the 75% that has been quoted over and over, has been challenged (by Lorrin Garson of the American Chemical Society) and I have attempted to support my estimate above.
We can discuss this any time (we ARE doing so right now). I'm at Princeton till end of August, then at Southampton. Both email addresses will continue to reach me.
----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > (1) The calculation according to which the "per-page" savings would be > only 25%, leaving 75% still to be paid for is based on how much > electronic processing will save in PAPER publication. The entire > superstructure is set up to hurtle headlong toward print on paper, so > if you recalculate that budget and leave out the print-run and a few > other things, you find you're left with 75% of the original expenses. > Solution? Exorcise everything having to do with going into paper, from > the bottom up. Budget an electronic-ONLY journal, and the per-page cost > will come out much, much lower (if anything, my 25% is an > OVER-estimate).
While I fully agree with Stevan Harnad's intention, I must differ a little on the question of how to get there.
Stevan is quite right in saying that the entire superstructure is set up to hurtle headlong toward print on paper. He suggests we should 'exorcise" everything having to do with going into paper.
In inciting us to do this thought experiment, Stevan achieves an important result which is to give us a way to free ourselves from frames of reference that have been present for so long that they have become completely naturalized. To see beyond those and to think "autrement", in a different manner is truly the fundamental stake.
This said, this is not the only stake. Another problem is to find the way to reach the vision through the contingent, material, historical, social, concrete (the choice of the right adjective is anyone's choice) situation in which we are located now.
Right now, the research system works in an extremely complex manner where pecking orders, legitimacy, memory building through proper archiving and bibliographic efforts and even communication :-) takes place. This is the given and we must start from there while, simultaneously conjuring up the right vision for the future. In short we must simultaneously have the right vision of the present and the right vision of the future to have a chance to chart the right course between now and the future. The word "right" occurs three times in this sentence and it points to the fundamental difficulty of the task. In fact it is daunting, but it should not discourage us.
Personally, my answer to the first right is: look at the best literature on the history and sociology of research to see how it has been built and how it works. here the fundamental references are the works from the Merton school, including Diana Crane's study of invisible colleges and its quantified extensions through Derek Price's works and the ISI people (Henry Small's work on clusters is important here, for example). More recently, social constructivists, ethnomethodologists and other approaches (such as Bourdieu's workk) have enriched our vision of the present and allow us to understand that the research system is an immensely complex juggernaut that will not be modified easily.
As for the second "right", I believe this is where Stevan's ability to articulate a future for academic publishing of research comes into its own. He has a great ability to see beyond our normal horizons and we should heed his voice as he recounts what he has seen. But then comes the third, most important question: how to get there?
Good old Hegel has taugh us that the new could come out of the old only if it incorporated enough of the old itself to allow its very emergence. In other words, moving to the future will require incorporating some of th eold, and in the case of e-publishing, this means incorporating some role for paper.
I know that by saying this, I will provoke my impatient friends who would like to move on directly to the future. But let me remind them that human beings hopefully will remain part of the future equation, for, if this is not the case, we will end up in utopia, not in reality. Utopia has its functions, but they have to be delineated carefully whe it comes to implementing policies or strategies.
Human beings will have to read for a long time and the act of reading is not uniform. One of the pitfalls of print is precisely that it has taught us to treat all information as if it was read in a uniform manner by providing us with a "maximalist" solution. Definition of print on paper is generally excellent so that information can be studied, mulled over, commented upon and so on. However, we do not always want to engage into reading in this fashion. Browsing, getting a feel for, looking for specific tidbits of information are some of the many ways in which we may wish to engage ourselves with regard to information.
With the advent of digitized information and its default materialization as screen display, we have become aware that the default presentation was not always the best for all we wanted to do, particularly studying. As a result, we transfer the digitized information to paper to do this. On the other hand, to search for information, for easy quoting, and a for large number of tasks, we keep the infotion in its digital form and we materialize it in an ephemereal, non-material fashion (if materializing in a non-material manner makes any sense at all :-). But one basic fact remains: for the moment, the research system cannot avoid using paper on some occasions and denying this deprives electronic publishing of a very basic foundation that will allow it to take off in a fruitful manner.
As a result, and to go back to the initial question, it is probably better to calculate the cost as indicated above by Lorrin Garson. In effect, let us take the worst possible case and see what we can do with it.
The question I would like to raise with regard to academic publishing is the following. Let us look at the macro picture, independently of countries and the like. let us look at the whole world system of research publication and let us define two categories of financing to see how thay fit. On the one hand, let us call "public money" all sources of financing that come out of governmental, institutional sources, including foundations and even private donations. Let us call "private money", money coming out of the pocket of individuals who actually buy learned journals. I do mean individuals exclusively.
In the production of learned journals, even without calculating of producing the research results themselves, public money is always involved, either implicitly or explicitly. Journals receive support from a variety of sources, be they those of a university, a department, a faculty, a professional association, a governmental agency, a foundation, a gift converted into endowment, etc. Faculty members that take care of journals may receive help in kind (secretarial, telephone use, whatever) and my have their teaching load reduced (thus forcing the hiring of another professor or teaching assistant). Etc. etc... All this is well known and it would be interesting to have statistical figures about this situation.
But public money is also involved at the other end of the cycle. Libraries that buy journals, do it with institutional funds that eith come from the private revenues of a private university, for example, or the grants givent by a government to a public university (supplemented by the tuition fees of students).
What would be interesting to look at is the the part of this hidden public money in the revenues of learned journals. This becomes all the more interesting that libraries generally pay a much higher subscription rate than individuals, so that, even though they may a minority in the number of subscribers, they may still represent an important fraction of the revenues for a learned journal. If journal editors were kind enough to supply me with some figures in this regard, i would be delighted to summarize the results for the net.
Now, going back to the economics of printed journals: what has to be taken into consideration is everything beyond copy editing, including postage to mail the issues out, of course (this is an important source of expense for journals, and it shows in the fact that subscription rates vary with country of destination).
If the cost of everything beyond copy editing is greater than the revenues from individuals, this means that moving to electronic publishing would allow putting all the published results of the research system at the disposal of the whole world FREELY.
Why don't we do it?
For a number of reasons that are the very points on which we must work to map out a viable strategy aiming at changing the situation.
1. The treatment of learned journals as commodities is deeply embedded within institutions and mentalities to the point that granting agencies use sale figures as legitimate criteria to evaluate whether they support a given journal or not.
2. The economic analysis I have provided, based as it is on a concept of public money that is not usually present in accounting practices, makes sense only if producers of journals and archivers of journals work hand in hand. In other words, this economic analysis makes sense if and only if publishers (whatever their nstitutional nature) and librarians work hand in hand, which is not the case at present. Yet ARL and AAUP do have a common meeting each year, thus showing that they have overlapping concerns. The advent of digitized information will hasten this convergence, as it does in other quarters of activity.
3. Journal editors and publishers are often loath to relinquish detailed, standardized budgetary figures as these might lead to uncomfortable comparisons having to do with the local efficiency of a given operation. However, granting agencies do have figures on large enough a scale to provide for some statistical support or rebuttal of what is advanced here. So I call upon them to do this work which, incidentally, can be done without releasing particular names of journals.
This analysis, if correct, would show that e-publishing may well be already viable, even with the
I'll second Stevan Harnad's economic estimate, and his general philosophy. I publish a weekly 32KB newsletter. The electronic circulation is irrelevant in terms of cost. I also send out hardcopy, for which I charge postage and an extra $.25 per week for printing and handling. (I have _one_ hardcopy subscriber, but would want to print out a copy for my own use in any case. It takes me about half an hour to do the formatting, as I haven't purchased a good layout program yet.)
Total costs, including advertising and supplies, have been about $2,000 per year + network access costs (free, in my case) + an occasional purchase of computer hardware or software + whatever my time is worth. I've included the cost of news sources (i.e., subscriptions and professional memberships) in that $2,000; obviously one could pay much more -- even millions, for a weekly such as Newsweek. Harnad's proposal concerned esoteric publishing, which usually uses free material. The peer review -- which I omit -- is also free, except for the correspondence and "shepherding" expenses.
If you don't go after a large readership, there's no advertising expense. If you don't edit authors' papers, there's very little editing expense. If you use LISTSERV or MajorDomo, there's no clerical expense. That's why most net services are free.
Unfortunately, the next level of quality requires at least one paid professional. Money must be collected somehow, so either sponsors must be courted or customers must be billed. Net commerce isn't well developed yet, so billing and payment are major hassles. Clerical help with the billing can add to the cost, so sponsorship is usually the better option.
I've been advocating self-publication for several years now. Stevan has always insisted on the need for peer review, whereas I see it as optional. Peer review certainly adds an exciting dynamic to his e-journals, and may help in satisfying sponsors. Vanity publishing has entirely different benefits. I expect that both will do well. What will not survive is redundant publishing of slightly varying conference papers, journal articles, and collected works with delays of 1-3 years. Publish or perish has pushed academic publishing to the point of collapse, with library budgets no longer able to archive everything that any scientist wants to record for posterity. That function will now fall to FTP publishing as Stevan suggests, or possibly to CD ROM publishing of tech report archives. Hardcopy publication will become more reader-driven (reader pulled?) instead of author/sponsor-driven, and only the highest-quality collections will appear in print. For those, editing and publishing costs will remain high.
-- Ken Laws Computists' Communique
Dr. Kenneth I. Laws; (415) 493-7390; l...@ai.sri.com. Ask about my weekly AI/IS/CS online news service. -------
>Good old Hegel has taugh us that the new could come out of the old >only if it incorporated enough of the old itself to allow its very >emergence. In other words, moving to the future will require incorporating >some of the old, and in the case of e-publishing, this means incorporating >some role for paper.
It is difficult to see, initially, what role paper would have in electronic publishing. However, I believe the issue is not the role, but the functionality provided by paper-based technology. Following on from Hegel's ideas, any EP product requires some functionality of paper-based technology to ensure that existing readers can continue to associate with the new medium. This, in my mind, is a major contributor to the 'lost-in-hyperspace' syndrome associated with hypermedia. Readers do not have access to the complex cognitive cues available in paper-based technology, cues we are all taught about as part of our education. Looking back to the early times after Gutenberg, the new movable-type technology carried forward aspects of manuscript and scroll technology where appropriate. This has to be the case for EP as well. Where appropriate, the environment provided to the reader should utilise existing paradigms, but the problem for the software builder becomes 'when to quit the paradigm/metaphor because it has become inappropriate'.
One example of this similarity between paper-based and electronic publishing is the issue of authoring and reading. Many tools on the market today assume, implicitly, that reading is a subset of authoring. Hence, if I provide you with the authoring tool, you will be able to read my document. Simple analysis indicates the falacy of this assumption. Reading and authoring share common aspects, but reading is not writing. Reading requires different functions and hence a different tool. How many people read large amounts of electronic information using microsoft word. It can be done, I know, but it is not comfortable. For large amounts most of us would still print it out, because we can associate more favourably with the paper version that the microsoft word interface. This does not mean the the Word interface is bad, just that it is inappropriate, it was writen for writing, not reading.
Given, then the lack of standards for reading, how can we do what Steve suggests, publish all our work electronically? One way is to develop conventions for the source data and that is what the TEI innitiative has been attempting in conjunction with the SGML standard. However, we need to go further, we need conventions for the functionality of reading tools/environments.
------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Bob Jansen Principal Research Scientist, Knowledge-Based Systems CSIRO Division of Information Technology Physical: Building E6B, Macquarie University Campus, North Ryde NSW 2113, AUSTRALIA Postal: Locked Bag 17, North Ryde NSW 2113, AUSTRALIA Phone: +612 325 3100 Fax: +612 325 3101 email: jan...@syd.dit.csiro.au -------------------------------------------------------