Re: Frankenstein

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:44:04PM -0500, Robert Cicconetti wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Greg Newby <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:22:33PM +0000, Jon Hurst wrote:
> > > The other day I noticed that DP has recently uploaded a reworking of
> > > Frankenstein (#41445), the 12th most downloaded "work" on PG. I am
> > > assuming that it wasn't cross-checked against #84, so I've started the
> > > process of doing this.
> > >
> > > I've done the quick and easy bit and now have the text rewrapped to
> > > the images. I would like to get these files uploaded to #41445's
> > > fileset - they are sitting at:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/JonHurst/frankenstein
> > >
> > > If you want to just get a zip file rather than use git use:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/JonHurst/frankenstein/archive/master.zip
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what the protocol for doing this is, beyond it being
> > > "supported and encouraged" to have the scans present in the fileset of
> > > a given "expression" -- Greg, please let me know what you would like
> > > to do.
> >
> > You're saying you have the page scans that were used to make
> > #41445, but they were not provided as part of the original
> > file upload?
> >
> > Usually, scans come from whoever submitted the rest of the book.
> >
> > The only trick is there is a naming convention for the filenames.
> > Did you already do that (sorry, I did not look at the files
> > mentioned above)?  There is a page at www.pgdp.net (somewhere)
> > that describes the naming convention.  I have it somewhere, too.
> >
> > If so, just get in touch with the WWer who posted the files, to
> > arrange delivery.  If you don't know who this is, or none of this
> > makes sense, email me directly or email pgww-4LCm/o+qPMZ96Xl/[email protected]
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> The page images are from a "photo-reprint" of the 1818 Lacking, Hughes, et
> al. edition, which, judging by the scans, is code for microfiche/microfilm.
> They're at DP for now, and when archived will end up at OLS.
> http://www.pgdp.net/c/project.php?id=projectID508470307d6dd
> 
> Weren't there discussions at some point on automated or semi-automated
> uploading of DP scansets to PG? They all get archived, even the ones that
> aren't publicly displayed at OLS because of politeness/permission issues.

Yes, at my request.  This discussion first happened in 2004, with me,
Juliet Sutherland & Charles Franks.  Suffice to say that DP has not
adopted the process yet.  Most individual uploaders don't provide
their scans either.

  -- Greg
_______________________________________________
gutvol-d mailing list
gutvol-d-4LCm/o+qPMZ96Xl/[email protected]
http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d