Re: Dictionaries, practical question

Hi Patrick,

FieldWorks/FLEx is free and provides for the creation of structured
elements of a dictionary and also a visual presentation of the whole entry.
It has a number of export possibilities which I'm sure would be convertable
to TEI if needed. The links back to the source document could be encoded in
the entry.

My experience in working with the TEI to encode multiple vocabulary lists
in Australian languages from the early 1900s is that using the TEI requires
dependence on a specialist. I had thought that the TEI, being a mature
encoding, would have had tools available for presentation of text and
images of the text, but that is not the case, it seems that each
application is tailor made and not re-usable. So, from the individual
researcher's perspective, and in the absence of a local specialist team
like yours in Cologne who can help with the TEI aspect, Flex offers an
immediate solution.

All the best,

Nick



On 12 January 2017 at 08:55, Patrick Sahle <[email protected]> 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
>