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

[Antônio Carlos da Rocha Costa]

Stephen,

   I'll ask Juliano Freitas to post in the list, as an alternative, the
DTD we are working on, about these issues.

   All the best,

   Antônio Carlos


Stephen Slevinski wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>