Re: Dictionaries, practical question

I have worked with FLEx and FLEx-generated XML, first preparing a large 
corpus-derived dictionary for FLEx ingestion and then iterating on that. 
It can be done with only a minor headache as you learn the underlying 
format and then e.g. discover the differences between particular versions.

I don't really see an ontological platform for comparing FLEx vs. TEI. 
FLEx is a 'machine`, TEI is a metaformat. I'd take FLEx for 
lexicographic work and then worry about potential export to TEI (or 
rather transformation from FLEx export). Or even attempt to go both 
ways, if the initial data are in TEI, but then, maintaining references 
could be a challenge.

I have planned to check out the Viennese Lexicographic Editor[1], and 
even managed to run it under Linux, but got stuck afterwards. It is 
definitely worth trying for some lexicographic tasks, especially when 
it's gotten more documentation.

[1] http://www.oeaw.ac.at/acdh/de/vle

Good luck,

   Piotr


On 01/11/2017 10:55 PM, Patrick Sahle wrote:
>
> I had a similar discussion only today: a colleague wants to create from
> a 18th century manuscript a multi language lexicon using FieldWorks/FLEx
> (http://fieldworks.sil.org/). I tried to convince him on the advantages
> using TEI would have but didn't get through. I see his arguments for an
> easy to use tool that is established in his field. But I am concerned
> about the loss of information about the material, visual and structural
> aspects of the documents. We are now discussing into two directions:
> - would it be possible to convert from FLEx to (sufficiently information
> rich) TEI in the end? Mainly for interoperability reasons ...
> - would it be wise to go from TEI to FLEx (keeping more information from
> the documents, but working without an easy editing tool)?
>
> Any experiences on this around?
>
> Best, Patrick
>
> Am 11.01.2017 um 16:37 schrieb Paul Schaffner:
>> Hi all, this is not strictly TEI, as you'll see, but I suspect there are
>> a number of lexicographers here. I was asked yesterday by someone
>> compiling a Latin dictionary if there was a standard (perhaps
>> database-type) piece of application software in which to compile, edit,
>> and search it. He is (sigh) using Microsoft Word at the moment, and has
>> rejected the usual filemaker-type databases as not sufficiently
>> supportive of word-processor-type formatting (multiple languages and
>> fonts, etc.) I of course pointed out that the chief desideratum for
>> future functionality was to distinguish unambiguously between different
>> structurally distinct pieces of each entry; that XML was a good vehicle
>> for recording the sort of mixture of fielded, normalized and free-form
>> text typical of dictionaries; that XML could be entered, searched, and
>> edited in any number of applications, from Access forms to simple text
>> editors; and that TEI did have a functional dictionaries module which
>> was worth considering. I am investigating further as to what he actually
>> hopes to do with the data, which makes a big difference.
>>
>> But in the meantime: is there in fact a popular software choice amongst
>> working lexicographers? (To the extent that anything used by
>> lexicographers could be called 'popular'!)
>>
>> pfs
>>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apl. Prof. Dr. Patrick Sahle
> Koordinierungsstelle Digital Humanities der Nordrhein-Westfälischen
> Akademie der Wissenschaften
> Cologne Center for eHumanities (CCeH) <http://www.cceh.uni-koeln.de/>
> Data Center for the Humanities <http://www.dch.uni-koeln.de/>
> DiXiT ITN <http://www.dixit.uni-koeln.de/>
> Institut für Dokumentologie und Editorik <http://www.i-d-e.de>
>
> Postanschrift: Cologne Center for eHumanities (CCeH), Universität zu
> Köln, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D-50923 Köln
> Büro: Meister-Ekkehart-Str. 11, Raum 2.04; Telefon: +49 - (0)221 - 470 3894

-- 
Piotr Bański, Ph.D.
Senior Researcher,
Institut für Deutsche Sprache,
R5 6-13
68-161 Mannheim, Germany