[sw-l] Sign Puddle: from a glossary to a dictionary

[Stephen Slevinski]

Hi List,

Sign Puddle really is a glossary tool, rather than a dictionary.  We need to
add information to the signs.  If we can come up with a formal definition of
what this additional information should look like (a DTD for example), I
will update the editors screen to allows them to maintain this information.
This information will become part of the Sign Puddle extract.

Here is an incomplete start:
Source:
Dialect:
Parts of speech: verb, noun, ...
Usage: text

Anyone interested?
-Stephen

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
[mailto:owner-sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu]On Behalf Of Dan Parvaz
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 11:59 AM
To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
Subject: RE: [sw-l] Guidelines for Dictionary Editors ;-)


> Your argument is of course completely correct, except that you argue by
> comparing the Puddle dictionaries as they presently stand with the
American
> Heritage Dictionary and OED.

Oh, I don't mean to compare them at all -- merely to point out that access
to swear words is avilable in any case, and by quite reputable scholars.

And I do agree that there is much that is basic that should be included.
For one, I'd like to see entries along the lines of a full-blown
dictionary, including part of speech and usage information (in the form of
attested sentences), as well as link and referencing words to each other
(synonyms, antonyms, etc.) I'm not quite talking about something as
complex as WordNet, but more like a dictionary than a glossary. A brief
exposition of grammar and usage also has its place.

I think we have a shot at really doing this the right way.

-Dan.