[Lexicog] Re: Lexique Pro file from scratch

[Christopher Manning]

Hi, this is a belated follow-up to David Frank's message from Jan 6:

 > It sounds like Phil is saying that he has resisted using Shoebox/Toolbox up
 > to now, but having seen Lexique Pro he wants to know if he has to take the
 > plunge and learn how to use one of these in order to be able to take
 > advantage of Lexique Pro. It looks like the answer is, basically, "yes".
 > See the first question and answer under http://www.lexiquepro.com/faq.htm.
 > However, if you understand how "standard format" field markers are used by
 > Shoebox for dictionary data, you wouldn't absolutely have to use Shoebox to
 > put your data into the right format. You could do it in a simple plain text
 > editor. That's how it was done in the olden days. But I wouldn't recommend
 > it. For a small amount of data, that would be fine, but for a whole
 > dictionary, it would be much more practical to learn how to use Shoebox.

I'm really not sure that this is "the olden days".  Many of us
interested in computerized approaches might like and want to think it
is the olden days, but I doubt that's true.  Certainly, when I had more
contact with field linguists in Australia in the late 90s, my impression
was that a sizable majority of them used either a plain text editor or
Word to keep their dictionary data.  I doubt that things have changed
much yet.

There are several avenues to change: exposure to better methods, cost of
software, getting training, better technology.  And some of those are
happening. The greater adoption of tools within SIL is doubtless at
least in part due to the opportunities for training and effective
support from colleagues.

But I do also feel that there is a technological need.  Imagine a tool
for entering dictionary entries that looks more like a Word document but
you put pieces of text in fields by selecting them and choosing a field
(much as you apply styles in MS Word).  Perhaps it would color code
pieces of text for different fields, and would object if there were text
other than field-separator punctuation that wasn't assigned to a
field. A cleverer program might even attempt to automatically assign
text for new entries to fields based on assumed consistency in content
and punctuation with existing entries.  This tool would load and output
dictionaries in a structured format such as Standard Format or XML.

If such a tool existed, I think a lot of people currently using Word or
a plain text editor (and a lot of people currently using
Shoebox/Toolbox!) would turn to it.

Chris.



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/79vVAA/HKE4lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/