 |
 |
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 >>>>> >>> >