Dictionary

Tue Jan 31 23:27:26 UTC 2006

Hi All,

If add my 2 cents that means we will then have 4 cents worth about
dictionary software.

Quickly, for those that don't know me, I am from an Aboriginal
Organisation in Newcastle, Australia managing our own Language
Reclamation and Revitilisation program on the Awabakal Language.
Through doing this we have developed our own Language computer program
which some of you are familiar with, it now has an official name titled
"Miraama" which is from our language and is translated as "saved".

Anyway, our team has developed Miraama on the MS Access platform as a
program specifically designed as a IT tool for  Aboriginal Language
workers to utilize in contrast to the Linguists Toolbox. It is extremely
powerful in its ability to archive language not only in a text format
but also by using audio, video and still images for every word recorded
in Miraama.  It can produce wordlists and run some very helpful filters
which has certainly helped us unlock some of the secrets of our
language.

But also, we are able to at a click of a button export all of our data
into Toolbox, Lexique Pro no problems at all, this means it can keep all
of the Linguists happy as well.  We can chose what fields are exported,
the markers they receive etc.  We recently implemented a version of
Miraama at VACL in Victoria as they have volunteered to be our test bug
finders before we make it available more widely, but the exciting thing
was that they had a language with over 7000 entries in a spreadsheet
which we were able to import into our program and at the mouse click at
anytime we can have this as a Toolbox file.  For the language learners
our linkage with Lexique Pro is extremely exciting as Miraama is already
Multimedia capable.

So this problem that Sophie has encountered on the surface seems to be
something that we have solved.  At present we are one way ie export to
shoebox, we hope to have completed in the next 12 months (if funding
allows) the ability to import into Miraama from Toolbox which means that
we could theoretically develop then an export to any other program eg.
Filemaker Pro.

I am sure with some data massage (IT Speak) we could take the 23500
filemaker file and match up the corresponding fields and export this to
a Toolbox file.  The head scratching comes in to effect when we have our
set fields with 9 customizable fields, which is about 30 in total but
neverless it is possible that you don't have to sit and retype 23500
entries of data again.

Regards

Daryn McKenny

Arwarbukarl Cultural Resource Association

________________________________

From: Sophia Stevenson [mailto:sophiadianas at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 1 February 2006 7:43 AM
To: Nicholas Thieberger; Bah, Oumar;
Resource-Network-Linguistic-Diversity at unimelb.edu.au
Subject: Re: Dictionary

Hello all,

 Just my two cents worth about dictionary software, since I have been
using both Toolbox and FileMaker Pro for a while now. 

 I was given a ton of data from a dictionary written with FileMaker Pro
(around 23500 records) to put into Toolbox, and unless you're
comfortable with minimal script writing, I wouldn't try going back and
forth between the two, but rather pick one program or the other and
stick with it. (...The reason being that Toolbox requires markers in
front of the text of each field in order to "recognize" it, while
FileMaker does not... The script was to insert the right markers in
front of the appropriate text in the exported .txt file from FileMaker
so that Toolbox could read it. 23500-ish entries X 20 fields = too much
to do by hand!) The director of my research group on Innu-Montagnais (an
Algonquian language) wrote and published her dict! ionary using
FileMaker Pro, and it turned out quite nicely. If you're more concerned
with the appearance of the final product and you want something more
appealing to the eye, I'd go with that. You have way more control and
flexibility over the layout with FileMaker Pro, whereas Toolbox is quite
limited with respect to page layout, so I have to say, I would not
recommend trying to print your dictionary directly from Toolbox.
HOWEVER, the same database you create with Toolbox can be read with
another SIL program called "Lexique Pro", which is designed for creating
a pretty-to-look-at and easy-to-use dictionary interface and works from
the same markers as Toolbox. It has the added bonus of being able to
create web pages, in case you want to include your dictionary in a web
site. If you download this program, it comes with a sample dictionary to
give you an idea of what you can do.

 http://www.sil.org/computing/catalog/show_software.asp?id=92 

 In my humble opinion, Shoebox isn't worth using when Toolbox is out
there, so don't be afraid to check it out! The Unicode alone makes it
worth your while... I don't know if you use any special characters, but
we most certainly do, and honestly, it would have been a mess without
the Unicode. Toolbox can read all your Shoebox data, so don't worry, you
won't have to start all over again. It also comes with a great tutorial
(downloaded separately), and you'll see once you work through it that
it's not as "user unfriendly" as all that.

 All this, of course, does not answer your question of how to import
data from Shoebox into FileMaker Pro... Based on my experiences, I think
it's safe to say the two are not easily transferable, but I wouldn't
give up! on your current software selection just yet. 

 Good luck with everything!

Sophia Stevenson

University of Quebec at Montreal (UQAM)

Nicholas Thieberger <thien at unimelb.edu.au> wrote:

	I would encourage you to persevere with Shoebox, and to look at
Toolbox, the newer version, available for free from the SIL website.
They also have training modules available at the same website which are
well worth reading. This is very good dictionary software that gives
you many ready-made functions that do not exist in ordinary database
software like FileMaker Pro.

	There are some websites that may help too:

http://www.linguistics.unimelb.edu.au/thieberger/RNLD/RNLDfaq.html#6

http://www.linguistics.unimelb.edu.au/thieberger/CALW/Shoebox5.htm

	A database program can be a good data entry form, depending on
how complex you want your dictionary entries to be. A database program
is limited because you may want some entries to be brief while others
may need lots of subentries and senses of the headword together with
examples. But when you want to produce a neat looking dictionary, both
on paper and on the web, for example, Toolbox will do that as part of
its inbuilt functions, and a database program will not.

	Can you find a linguist who uses Toolbox locally who can give
you some help? Once you are over the first learning curve it is a great
way to organise your dictionary.

	Nick Thieberger

		Dear Sirs

		I found your contact in the Internet. Sorry for the
disturbance. I am a linguist and I am currently working on a dictionary
for an african language with the program Shoebox of the SIL. I am having
some troubles. So I wonder if you could tell me how to import my data
into an alternative software, for instance the File Maker (for Windows).
I would be very grateful if you had any hints for me because Shoebox is
not very user friendly.

		Thanks in advance.

		Kind regards.  

		--   

		Project Manager

		PARADISEC

		Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics

		University of Melbourne, Vic 3010

		Australia

		nicholas.thieberger at paradisec.org.au

		Ph 61 (0)3 8344 5185

		PARADISEC

		Pacific And Regional Archive for Digital Sources in
Endangered Cultures

		http://paradisec.org.au

________________________________

	What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=38382/_ylc=X3oDMTEzNWFva2Y2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2B
HNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDMmF1dG9z/*http:/autos.yahoo.com/newcars/popular/t
hisweek.html%20%0d%0a>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/resource-network-linguistic-diversity/attachments/20060201/b4c912d4/attachment.htm>