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

[Ingvild Roald]

yes, I am very interseted in being able to apply that form of information.
I would also like to be able to give the date and the person who wrote the
sign (this is not the same as the source, as leaast not in my opinion, the
latter is where I saw the sign used). Something like 'theme' might also be
interesting, but maybe that should be left for the larger SignBank

Ingvild

sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu writes:
>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.
>
>
>