I've given my feedback directly on the page.
cheers
stuart
On 06/12/11 22:35, Piotr Bański wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> Instead of recommending ISO 1951, I would recommend the paper by
> Lemnitzer, Romary and Witt, on "Representing human and machine
> dictionaries in markup languages" [1], which hints at why ISO 1951 is
> not the best solution.
>
> [1]:
> https://www.zotero.org/groups/tei-lingsig/items/itemKey/NVXWMTK3/itemPage/2
>
> As for OLIF, it as an example of a standard that has been dead for years
> despite serious institutional support, while DicML appears to never even
> have been alive... they didn't have very diligent scouts, I'd say.
>
> Anyway, thanks again for the links, it's certainly worth knowing that
> people do such things close to the TEI region, targetting a serious
> market. It would certainly be good to monitor that initiative and
> provide feedback.
>
> Best,
>
> Piotr
>
> On 05/12/11 23:32, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
>> They were aware of TEI, DicML, and OLIF but might not know that
>> standard. I didn't. So this is certainly something to suggest!
>>
>> On 12/5/2011 5:19 PM, Piotr Bański wrote:
>>> ISO 1951 is a delivery format standard. Not that I'm advocating it, not
>>> at all, but it would seem kind of natural to see what their take on it
>>> is.
>>>
>>> At night, I might be grumpier than usual... ;-)
>>>
>>> best,
>>>
>>> P.
>>>
>>> On 05/12/11 23:11, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
>>>> They looked at TEI and others when considering whether to include this
>>>> in EPUB 3 but decided that it did more than necessary. EPUB is meant as
>>>> a format for delivery, not an archival format, so they are only trying
>>>> to cover the limited set of use cases described here.
>>>>
>>>> On 12/5/2011 5:09 PM, Piotr Bański wrote:
>>>>> Thanks, Kevin,
>>>>>
>>>>> One would think that proposing a new standard, even one of restricted
>>>>> scope, would entail having consulted and referenced other existing
>>>>> standards, or at least would require notifying the target groups
>>>>> (Lexicog and Euralex lists come to mind, minimally).
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh well. I'll push this into Lexicog, at least.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Piotr
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/12/11 17:50, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
>>>>>> Forwarding this from the mailing list of the IDPF EPUB Working Group.
>>>>>> Note the draft proposal for a working group on facilitating
>>>>>> inclusion of
>>>>>> dictionaries in EPUB. I believe feedback should be sent to Markus
>>>>>> Gylling, whose email is given in Google Code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:epub-working-
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Markus Gylling
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 5:50 PM
>>>>>>> To: Google Groups EPUB
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Charter proposals for dictionaries and indexes projects
>>>>>>> now available for comment
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> … and the proposals are available at
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://code.google.com/p/epub-revision/wiki/DictionariesCharterProposal
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> http://code.google.com/p/epub-revision/wiki/IndexesCharterProposal
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 2, 2011, at 11:29 PM, Markus Gylling wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> following the virtual workshop on dictionaries and indexes that was
>>>>>>> held on 18 October, the ad-hoc groups that were formed have now
>>>>>>> published drafts of charter proposals for two working groups on
>>>>>>> indexes
>>>>>>> and dictionaries, respectively.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As per IDPFs policies and procedures, these are hereby submitted to
>>>>>>> the membership for a 14 day comment period (ending December 16,
>>>>>>> 2011).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Comments received will be reviewed by the AHGs and IDPF board and
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> subsequent step would be for a revised version of the proposal to be
>>>>>>> approved by the IDPF board for submission to members for a consent
>>>>>>> vote
>>>>>>> to approve working group creation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We welcome your input!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On behalf of the AHGs,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /markus
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
|
