duncanjonathan at YAHOO.CA
Wed May 23 01:26:41 UTC 2007
Steve Slevinski wrote:
> Hi Gerard,
> There are several variations of SWML.
> *1. SWML-UCPel*: the original SWML Formats
> *2. SWML-D*: for WoordenBoek Online Dictionaries
> *3. SWML-S*: for SignPuddle Online Dictionaries
> *4. SWDB*: for UCPel Linguistic SignWriting Database
> I believe Variations 1,2, and 4 use the old symbol sets. (either
> sss-95 or sss-99).
> I created SWML-S for the latest symbol set, SSS-2004 (or the IMWA).
> The -S stands for simple. I initially looked at the SWML-UCPel, but
> decided it was not an appropriate fit because it appeared too
> complicated and it didn't use the latest symbol set.
> SWML-S was created from scratch and only has basic information: signs
> in lanes. The latest version is 1.2 I believe. It should probably be
> cleaned up, but it's been working fine for SignPuddle and SignText so
> I've left it alone. I'm working on a new SignText that will continue
> to use SWML-S.
> I'm also working on a SignText markup language that will include
> SignWriting, Unicode, and graphics. It will be used for screen
> display and PDF generation.
What is the current inter program SignWriting XML format? I see
SignPuddle 1.5 has easier access to SBML than SWML-S.
I have a couple comments about each of these formats. I hope that
they will be a small contribution to even better formats.
The SWML-S at least the files that had the dictionaries looked like this
<symbol x="102" y="93">01-05-014-01-04-10</symbol>
<symbol x="103" y="82">02-01-001-01-01-01</symbol>
<symbol x="115" y="103">01-05-048-01-03-01</symbol>
The xsd program which figures out the XML structure from the an XML
chokes on the "gloss" as it is both an attribute and a tag. I managed
to work around it by doing a search and replace for one of them so that
they are distinct. Then it worked just fine. Another comment, I image
that the "gloss" tag was meant so that there could be several glosses
per sign. Is this right? If it is so then the "symbol" tags should be
withing the "gloss" tag or else we won't know which "symbol" tag belongs
to which "gloss" tag. It isn't enough that the "gloss" tag come first.
So my suggestion main suggestion is to keep the attributes and tags
My other comment about SBML which I realized was made especially for
SignBank which I am sure works just fine. But SBML uses comma separated
values. Which are fine, I use them all them time. But I feel that they
are out of context in an XML file. As is I can load the SBML into
objects or a dataset but I still have to parse the build and the
sequence to get to the information. But if each comma separated value
has it's own tag, it will load just as fast into an object or dataset
and I don't have to do any parsing to get at the information. So for a
SignWriting exchange format, I strongly suggest staying away from comma
When you have a prototype of any other SignWriting ML like the STML,
please feel free to post it so that we can give our two cents worth.
> GerardM wrote:
>> On my blog Phil Boswell asked about the SWML site.. it seems to have
>> gone.. do you have a new URL or is there a new place for this
>> information ??
>> http://www.signwriting.org/forums/software/swml/swml01.html leads to
Jonathan & Yolaine Duncan
8-) & ;-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Sw-l