Re: FW: Dictionaries, practical question

I use eXist almost exclusively, but once in a while I go and look 
longingly at BaseX, impressed by how well-managed its codebase and 
release process seems to be. But I always find that eXist's indexing 
system is much more sophisticated, for instance in allowing individual 
tags to be specified as token-internal, and other tags to be ignored 
when indexing:

"BaseX does not support the ignore option (without content) of the W3C 
XQuery Full Text 1.0 Recommendation. If you want to ignore descendant 
element content, such as footnotes or other material that does not 
belong to the same logical text flow, you can build a second database 
from and exclude all information you do not want to search for."
<http://docs.basex.org/wiki/Full-Text>

All of my projects use such indexing features, and building multiple 
versions of the entire database to get them seems like an excessive 
workaround.

Other things I like about eXist are the responsive and friendly 
developer community and the very rich range of features and deployable 
apps.

Hope this helps,
Martin



On 2017-01-15 01:15 PM, Daniel STOEKL BEN EZRA wrote:
> Dear colleagues
> May I ask those who have tried BaseX AND eXist what are the advantages
> of using eXist compared to BaseX or, vice versa, the advantages of BaseX
> compared to eXist? What can you do in eXist which you cannot do in BaseX
> or the other way round?
> Many thanks
> Daniel
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list
> [[email protected]] on behalf of Christian Grün
> [[email protected]]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 13, 2017 12:10 PM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: Dictionaries, practical question
>
> Hi Charly,
>
> sorry for the confusion. I was simply stupid enough to pass my mail on
> back to you and the list while it was rather meant to be forwarded to
> some other guys in the TEI area. ;) I am glad to hear that VLE benefits
> from BaseX!
>
> Cheers
> Christian
>
>
>
>
> Am 13.01.2017 11:43 schrieb "Mörth, Karlheinz"
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>:
>
>     You are right, and to be precise, it should be "makes heavily use of
>     the BaseX database" or "builds on the BaseX database"
>
>     We actually see in the move away from traditional architectures
>     (CLIENT - PHP/PERL/PYTHON - relational database) towards REST in
>     combination with BaseX an important step forward which is due -
>     among others - to the fact that BaseX is so straightforward to set
>     up. The 'monolingual' XML-only architecture (XSLT, XML SCHEMA,
>     XQuery) turned out to be a big advantage. Getting others to create a
>     functioning environment has become much more feasible like this.
>     BaseX also proved to be very efficient in querying and stable during
>     operation.
>
>     All the best
>
>     Charly
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Christian Grün [mailto:[email protected]
>     <mailto:[email protected]>]
>     Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 4:42 PM
>     To: Mörth, Karlheinz <[email protected]
>     <mailto:[email protected]>>
>     Cc: tei-l <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>     Subject: Re: Dictionaries, practical question
>
>     VLE (dictionary writing system), »recent versions are tightly
>     integrated with the BaseX«…
>     ____________________________________
>
>     On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Mörth, Karlheinz
>     <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>     wrote:
>     > Hi Paul,
>     >
>     > There is an incomplete but helpful list on Wikipedia:
>     > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_writing_system
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_writing_system>
>     >
>     > Are you aware of the following very interesting document? It was
>     created as part of the ENEL (European Network of e-Lexicography)
>     Cost Action by very experienced experts in the field (Abel, Krek,
>     Tiberius): Bibliography –Dictionary Writing Systems (DWS) & related
>     software
>     >
>     http://www.elexicography.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Bibliography_DWS_CQS_v7_web.pdf
>     <http://www.elexicography.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Bibliography_DWS_CQS_v7_web.pdf>
>     >
>     > The Viennese Lexicographic Editor (VLE) is a Windows standalone
>     application which we have been developing for quite some time now.
>     Several smaller dictionaries were done with it. The most recent one is:
>     >
>     https://basex-dev.eos.arz.oeaw.ac.at/dict_api/tunico/tunis_dict__v002.html
>     <https://basex-dev.eos.arz.oeaw.ac.at/dict_api/tunico/tunis_dict__v002.html>
>     (prod. server; link will change)
>     >
>     > Others you can find on the Vienna-Corpus-of-Arabic-Varieties
>     (VICAV) website:
>     > https://vicav.acdh.oeaw.ac.at
>     >
>     > VLE is a general-purpose XML editor enhanced by functionalities
>     typically needed in editing lexical data. We have compiled all our
>     dictionaries in TEI. If you want to see details of the encoding,
>     have a look here:
>     > https://clarin.oeaw.ac.at/lrp/dict-gate/docs.html
>     <https://clarin.oeaw.ac.at/lrp/dict-gate/docs.html>
>     >
>     > VLE makes use of various XML technologies, e.g. XSLT, XPath,
>     XQuery. It has a number of useful features which were needed in our
>     projects (validation against XML Schema, visualisation through
>     customizable XSLT in all parts of the system, sound recording etc).
>     Recent versions are tightly integrated with the BaseX database which
>     makes it easy to set up local instances. We also have implemented
>     versioning. It comes with a tokenEditor that allows to furnish
>     corpora with dictionary IDs. Recently we have been working on an
>     Application Creator module which helps to create web applications by
>     means of a very simple wizard.
>     >
>     > Due to time pressure, VLE is still scarcely documented although we
>     have been working on this. It is freely available. If you want to
>     try it, get in touch. I am happy to help. VLE is an ongoing project.
>     >
>     > All the best
>     >
>     > Charly
>     > ________________________________________________
>     > Karlheinz Moerth
>     > Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities
>     > Austrian Academy of Sciences
>     > Sonnenfelsgasse 19/2nd floor
>     > 1010 Wien
>     > Tel: +43 1 51581-2220 <tel:%2B43%201%2051581-2220>
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list
>     [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>]
>     On Behalf Of Piotr Banski
>     > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 11:22 PM
>     > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     > Subject: 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
>     <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/
>     <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 <tel:%2B49%20-%20%280%29221%20-%20470%203894>
>     >
>     > --
>     > Piotr Bański, Ph.D.
>     > Senior Researcher,
>     > Institut für Deutsche Sprache,
>     > R5 6-13
>     > 68-161 Mannheim, Germany
>
>