[Lexicog] collaborative dictionary editing

[Bill Poser]

Oops. I meant "used primarily by computer programmers".

On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Bill Poser <billposer2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> There is software available that automates a process similar to what Susan
> describes. It is called "revision control software" and is used primarily by
> computer programs. A good place to start is this Wikipedia article:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revision_control There are a number of free
> systems as well as some proprietary ones.
>
> I use revision control not only for software but for writing. If, for
> example, I am going to make major changes and might screw something up, I
> check in the current version, then check out a copy to work on. If I screw
> things up, I can just throw away what I've done and check out the previous
> version. These systems also keep track of changes, so if you discover a
> problem down the road, you can obtain a history of what you've done and
> reconstruct previous versions. (These systems typically keep either the
> first version or the current version plus a list of the editing commands
> that need to be executed to construct the other versions.)  Some systems
> allow only one user to check out a file at once. Such a file is said to be
> locked, and no one else can touch it until the person who has it out has
> checked it back in and released the lock. There are also systems that will
> allow multiple users to check out the same file and merge multiple changed
> versions (and detect incompatible changes).
>
> Another possibility is to use a specialized editor that does not make any
> changes but merely adds "comment" fields containing information about
> proposed changes. On this model, people would add their proposed changes and
> send them to a coordinator who would go through them and make the actual
> changes in a master copy of the database. This is probably not an efficient
> approach to adding records, but could be a reasonable approach to correcting
> and amplifying existing entries.
>
> I mention this with some trepidation because I have a still somewhat drafty
> program that does this. I wrote it for a different purpose, namely allowing
> non-linguists to propose corrections without letting them actually change
> the database. In addition to maintaining the integrity of the database, this
> allows a linguist or other knowledgeable editor to consider suggested
> changes and decide what to do about them. "corrections" may reflect
> disagreements among speakers, which need to be looked into, speakers who
> don't know the writing system used and therefore interpret correct entries
> as mis-spelled or erroneous, speakers who don't understand the English (or
> other language) used, and speakers who don't understand the way in which
> information is presented in the dictionary.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Susan Gehr <susan at gehr.info> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Toolbox does not allow multiple people to work on the same database file
>> at the same time.  Nick's solution for editing the data collaboratively is
>> the best idea that I've heard since I started using Toolbox actively in
>> 2003.  I've never heard any alternatives, except for switching to FLEx.  Is
>> collaborative editing working in FLEx?
>>
>> If there is no real-time collaborative editing solution, then when working
>> as a team, some planning is required.  There are a few options for the team
>> work process, but I will only describe the process that I've used.
>>
>> 1. A is the keeper of the master database.  B will work from a copy of the
>> database.
>> 2. Every so often (monthly?), A will grab a copy of B's ___ dictionary
>> database file.
>> 3. A enters the date she grabbed the copy on the file exchange date list
>> in Notebook.
>> 4. A will compare B's version to her version.
>>     In Toolbox, A opens the master dictionary database and the copy side
>> by side.
>>     Using the Filter feature on the copy, A hides all records not edited
>> since B started work on the copy or since the date of the last file
>> exchange.
>> 5. A incor! porates the changed records into the master database.
>> 6. A is the only one who can delete records from the master database.  If
>> B wants to recommend a record for deletion, he should type the word DELETE
>> into the \lx field after the lexeme.  A will see the record and delete the
>> record from the master.
>> 7. A will provide an updated copy of the master to B.  It's easiest if no
>> changes are made in between the time A grabs the copy and provides the
>> updated copy, which means that prompt work on A's part is important, and
>> perhaps that the copy grab takes place on the last day of B's work week.
>>
>> I've heard of the suggestion that people work on separa! te parts of the
>> database only, but that has never seemed like an accep table solution to me
>> or anyone I've worked with.
>>
>> Susan Gehr
>> http://karuk.org/
>> http://dictionary.karuk.org/
>>
>>
>> On Aug 9, 2011, at 9:55 PM, Nick Thieberger wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> googledocs? You can edit the text file there and then download it into
>> Toolbox as needed. But it means working directly in the text file so that
>> may be a problem.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> On 10 August 2011 14:51, wayne_leman <wayne_leman at sil.org> wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>> I am currently working on a dictionary project with team members working
>>> far from each other throughout the world. The database is in Toolbox format.
>>> We need to be able to edit the database collaboratively, while still keeping
>>> the database format intact so it can be displayed (or edited further) in
>>> Toolbox or Lexique Pro.
>>>
>>> Does anyone know of any real-time collaborative editing software that
>>> might allow us to keep the Toolbox database intact as a database?
>>>
>>> Wayne
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20110809/e10f4e31/attachment.htm>