Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.databases,comp.lsi,comp.parallel.pvm,comp.parallel.mpi,comp.org.acm,comp.org.ieee,comp.protocols.misc,comp.realtime,comp.software-eng,comp.sys.super,comp.theory,sci.math
From: Greg Pfister <pfister@austin.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Publishing Scholarly Work on the Web -- opinions?
Organization: IBM Server Group
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 19:38:52 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <323EFE4C.41C6@austin.ibm.com>

Bernd Paysan wrote:
[snip]
> Personally, I doubt that any form of traditional publishing will survive
> this revolution. It's the third revolution after the invention of
> writing and the invention of movable letters. Do you know any monk
> copying books? Peer reviewed web sites remind me on the irregular
> letters and the handpainted illustrations Gutenberg uses for his first
> printed bible to imitate hand-written books. A web site with high
> reputation better should collect good work all over the web. Because
> it's all second source, be comprehensive will be more important than be
> first. A good and important work can be found at any such site then.
> 
> Those who think the web is a new sort of television are completely
> wrong. The web is a new sort of a publishing house, one that allows
> everyone to publish for very few (or almost no) costs, and a danger for
> every other form of publishing (because all they are more expensive and
> slower). The two reasons why the web hasn't replaced them now are:
> availability and money. Many people don't have access to the web, and
> the concepts to earn a living by pubhlishing on the web are incomplete.

Perceptive comments.  I agree, but with some reservations.  Certainly
the ability to make unlimited, identical copies "free" (once you have
the computer) totally undermines traditional publishing.  But it only
does so if, in fact, the copies actually are identical to the original. 

That's the case with papers.  Printing the PostScript (or PDF, whatever)
gives me a copy as good as I'd get in a printed journal or conference
proceedings.  Similarly, copying a music or video DVD duplicates
everything about that original (which is why DVD isn't out yet, and why
DAT didn't fly).

However, I think longer works are a different story.  I don't think I'm
going to duplicate the capabilities of a book anytime soon with a
printer and/or CRT.  Some day convenient "readers" will make that form
obsolete too, but, oh, I'd say they have about 10 years of life left in
them.

In the meantime, "publishing" has to figure out how to make ALL their
money on the first release -- because the first release effectively
broadcasts the content.

Greg
-- 
________________________________________________________________________
Greg Pfister           |     My Opinion Only     | Phone: (512) 838-8338
pfister@austin.ibm.com | Sic Crustulum Frangitur |   Fax: (512) 838-5989

