[Lexicog] collaborative dictionary editing

[Bill Poser]

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/20110809/269dc85e/attachment.htm>