On 2015-10-24 08:28 AM, williams wrote:
> Do I note a touch of lèse majesté because a harmless fridge has spoken
> our of turn?
>
> <eg> refers to a textual phenomenon, almost an aside.
I think this is a mischaracterization of <eg>. Its definition is "any
kind of illustrative example", and the range of contexts in which it can
occur (see
<http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-eg.html>) shows
that although it's currently in the tagdocs module, it's used and usable
all over the place.
> Examples are
> carefully structured parts of a dictionary entry.
Yes, and they're structured in all sorts of different ways depending on
the approach of the dictionary-maker, including concocted examples,
quotations from historical sources, fragments from corpuses, etc. <eg>
can even appear inside <cit>, if necessary, so you could have a <cit>
which is not a quote (has no <quote>) but consists of an <eg> drawn from
a corpus instead, with a <bibl> or a <ref> providing information about
the source.
> Guess I’ll advise a Dictionary Markup Langage that will cover to what we
> discover. Lexicography is a broad community that is always willing to
> listen to other pints of view, but which remains very pragmatic as there
> is a job to be done. Here we want to organise, reorganise and extract
> info so as valorise content and not just form. It will be presented at
> EURALEX 2016 in Tblissi for those interested in dictionaries
Lots of us are interested in dictionaries (I work on one myself), and we
know that the TEI Dictionaries chapter is in need of some revision. But
I think the most helpful approach is not to walk away and invent a new
standard (which I gather is what you're suggesting above); we already
have enough of those:
"A great number of divergent formats have coexisted: Multilex and
Genelex (GENEric LEXicon) are systems that are associated with the
Expert Advisory Group on Language Engineering Standards (EAGLES). Other
formats used in digital dictionary projects are OLIF (Open Lexicon
Interchange Format), MILE (Multilingual ISLE Lexical Entry), LIFT
(Lexicon Interchange Format), OWL (Web Ontology Language) and DICT
(Dictionary Server Protocol)..."
<https://jtei.revues.org/522#tocto1n3>
(Of course there are even more, including LMF.)
I believe it would be better to engage with other TEI users and
collaborators to identify areas in which the TEI is not serving your
needs, and then to follow the normal paths to enhance our standard to
serve you better.
All the best,
Martin
>
> Geoffrey
>
> *Professor Geoffrey WILLIAMS. MSc, PhD */
> President of the EvalHum Initiative /
> /www.evalhum.eu <http://www.evalhum.eu>
> LiCoRN Research : www.licorn-ubs.com / www.evalhum.eu / www.ressh.eu
> <http://www.ressh.eu> / Twitter @EvalHum / EvalHum on Facebook /
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
>> Le 23 oct. 2015 à 21:33, Lou Burnard <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> a écrit :
>>
>> Maybe Geoffrey you could enlighten us poor non-lexicographers as to
>> why <eg> "does not suit at all"?
>>
>> Or indeed why something quoted from a corpus is not a quotation?
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23/10/15 18:28, williams wrote:
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> I follow with interest, whilst remaining a trifle bemused.
>>>
>>> I am a lexicographer, and I want to encode a dictionary from the 17th
>>> c which is startling modern in that it uses extensive examples, as
>>> opposed to the citations found in the much more literary dictionaries
>>> that came later, until of course the advent of post-Sinclair
>>> corpus-based dictionaries. Thus, I, and I guess many other working on
>>> digitizing dictionaries of the past, would early love an <example> to
>>> run alongside <cit>. <Example> might have two specific attributes,
>>> namely source, possibly unknown but potentially a corpus in recent
>>> dictionaries, and status - really crafted, authentic and authentic
>>> simplified. These are examples, not citations. Those we know how to
>>> handle.
>>>
>>> For the moment, I have had to adopt <cit type=« example »>, not
>>> ideal, but whilst awaiting better. This seems to require a <quote>,
>>> which I do not want as although bytes are cheap dictionaries are very
>>> big and elegance, one of the defining criteria of lexicography,
>>> requires simplicity. <eg> does not suit at all.
>>>
>>> Thus, clarifying issues in the guidelines might help, but speaking,
>>> and possibly even listening, to the retrodigitizing lexicographical
>>> community that you will find at ENeL (http://www.elexicography.eu
>>> <http://www.elexicography.eu/><http://www.elexicography.eu/>) and
>>> even EURALEX (www.euralex.org
>>> <http://www.euralex.org/><http://www.euralex.org/>) might be nice. We
>>> are actually fairly knowledgable about dictionaries, and some of us
>>> are devoted TEI users too. Our Consortium Cahier (HumaNum) team could
>>> be happy too.
>>>
>>> See some of you in Lyon, Furetière himself cannot make it, but my
>>> colleague of the Boissy project will be with me as we posting a poster..
>>>
>>> Geoffrey
>>>
>>>
>>> Professor Geoffrey WILLIAMS. MSc, PhD
>>> President of the EvalHum Initiative
>>> www.evalhum.eu <http://www.evalhum.eu/><http://www.evalhum.eu/>
>>> LiCoRN Research :www.licorn-ubs.com
>>> <http://www.licorn-ubs.com/><http://www.licorn-ubs.com/>
>>> /www.evalhum.eu <http://www.evalhum.eu/><http://www.evalhum.eu/>
>>> /www.ressh.eu <http://www.ressh.eu/><http://www.ressh.eu/> / Twitter
>>> @EvalHum / EvalHum on Facebook
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Le 23 oct. 2015 à 16:49, Romain Loth <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Thank you all for the clarifications. I didn't know about these
>>>> references. And sorry for barging in the discussion like this this
>>>> morning ! Of course clarification of <cit> throughout the guidelines
>>>> is the needed step forward, as Piotr remarked.
>>>>
>>>> I remain a dedicated reader of the TEI guidelines ;-) Good luck to
>>>> all in the conference meetings !
>>>>
>>>> Le 23/10/2015 15:38, Laurent Romary a écrit :
>>>>> The other good reference for such a discussion
>>>>> ishttps://jtei.revues.org/540#tocto2n5<https://jtei.revues.org/540#tocto2n5>
>>>>> I nearly forgot it.
>>>>> Laurent
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 23 oct. 2015 à 15:09, Piotr Bański <[log in to unmask]
>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>> a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Laurent,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I meant at least this one, indeed. Thanks for the explicit
>>>>>> reference, the paper will be a useful refresher before the meeting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23/10/15 14:59, Laurent Romary wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Piotr,
>>>>>>> In haste: are you referring
>>>>>>> tohttps://hal.inria.fr/hal-00762664v3<https://hal.inria.fr/hal-00762664v3>
>>>>>>> (TEI and LMF crosswalks)
>>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>> laurent
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Le 23 oct. 2015 à 14:56, Piotr Bański <[log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Frederik,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My point was not -- to be sure -- that this thread should be
>>>>>>>> ignored, but rather that, possibly, the 1st move should be to
>>>>>>>> verify whether some section or definition that should have
>>>>>>>> received an update years ago has managed to stay unmodified. It
>>>>>>>> has happened before... ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words, before the steam goes into the effort of
>>>>>>>> redefining this and that, a much more modest task may prove
>>>>>>>> fruitful, namely the task of checking and enforcing consistency
>>>>>>>> across the Guidelines, a practically everyday task in the TEI
>>>>>>>> world and the neighbouring universes. We probably fully agree on
>>>>>>>> the desired outcome -- I was just pointing out that the path to
>>>>>>>> get there _might_ be much shorter, and lead not via a feature
>>>>>>>> request but rather via a bug report, whereby the relevant bits
>>>>>>>> of prose get distributed properly across the Guidelines.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As the next best solution, a slight detour through the Council
>>>>>>>> documentation might prove necessary -- I'm sure there was a lot
>>>>>>>> of discussion of the changes, as always, and I'm positive that I
>>>>>>>> saw at least one article by Laurent addressing the extended
>>>>>>>> functionality of <cit>, in the context of modelling dictionary
>>>>>>>> entries and ties between the "Dictionaries" chapter and ISO LMF.
>>>>>>>> I am not sure at this point how much of that is (or should be)
>>>>>>>> found in the Guidelines themselves.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm sorry that I can't offer more than merely the above hints,
>>>>>>>> for the time being -- I am way behind with my own preparations
>>>>>>>> for the upcoming TEI-MM...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Piotr
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 23/10/15 13:50, Frederik Elwert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hello Piotr, all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am sure you know the history and reasoning this much better
>>>>>>>>> than I do.
>>>>>>>>> But I agree that option (2) is nothing more than documenting the
>>>>>>>>> reasoning behind the use of <cit> in the context of
>>>>>>>>> dictionaries in its
>>>>>>>>> very definition. But then I think this is already a lot. ;)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>> Frederik
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 23.10.2015 um 12:55 schrieb Piotr Bański:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But isn't option (2) merely a case of the Guidelines not
>>>>>>>>>> having gotten
>>>>>>>>>> fully updated with the changes that, nearly 10 years ago,
>>>>>>>>>> eliminated
>>>>>>>>>> <dicteg> and (partly) <def> exactly because <cit> with
>>>>>>>>>> attributes was
>>>>>>>>>> supposed to take over?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The (post-)P5 revolution in the "Dictionaries" chapter had
>>>>>>>>>> some serious
>>>>>>>>>> thinking behind it, as far as I recall -- and I can't help
>>>>>>>>>> thinking now
>>>>>>>>>> that the present message thread originates from an inadequate
>>>>>>>>>> transmission of said thinking into the Guidelines. It feels
>>>>>>>>>> like some
>>>>>>>>>> corner of the "Guidelines" retained the old <cit> definition,
>>>>>>>>>> where it
>>>>>>>>>> should have been updated, loooong ago.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, it's like looking at the history making a circle,
>>>>>>>>>> with all
>>>>>>>>>> the effort and argumentation (and sometimes frustration, too)
>>>>>>>>>> inbetween
>>>>>>>>>> going to waste. I recall that it took me well over a year to
>>>>>>>>>> get used to
>>>>>>>>>> <cit> in the new role... And I kept @type="dicteg" in my
>>>>>>>>>> markup for far
>>>>>>>>>> too long.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Piotr
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 23/10/15 12:42, Laurent Romary wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for the very interesting discussion. I would
>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>>>> support option two, which could (with appropriate definition
>>>>>>>>>>> update)
>>>>>>>>>>> provide a nice continuum for examples/citations in prose
>>>>>>>>>>> texts and
>>>>>>>>>>> dictionaries.
>>>>>>>>>>> Laurent
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 23 oct. 2015 à 12:39, Frederik Elwert
>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 23.10.2015 um 10:53 schrieb Romain Loth:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've read through this discussion and feel the solution has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> found because the core/tagdocs distinction hasn't been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> restated and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> resulting options have not been fully clarified.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing this up again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me start by a common sense remark : of course Frederik
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Geoffrey
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem right in that an exemple is not the same as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> citation. In the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> context explained by Geoffrey, it seems clear... and in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> many other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contexts I can think of too... But we tend to forget that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> common sense
>>>>>>>>>>>>> notions and XML tags are not the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You’re perfectly right. I was just pointing out that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> very definition
>>>>>>>>>>>> of <cit> in the guidelines contradicts its use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as a computer program is concerned, [cit
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @type="exemple"]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide extra "load on information extraction", because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "this is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exemple" info is there. That's how I understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sperberg-McQueen and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Burnard 1995 and how I explain to myself Lou's and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Laurent's positions.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In general yes, but the issue with @type vs. element is that
>>>>>>>>>>>> elements
>>>>>>>>>>>> have an explicit definition, whereas values for @type often
>>>>>>>>>>>> only are
>>>>>>>>>>>> part of examples or explications. If we had an explicitly
>>>>>>>>>>>> defined set of
>>>>>>>>>>>> values for @type for given elements, they would indeed be
>>>>>>>>>>>> interchangeable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, it makes sense to have a limited set of
>>>>>>>>>>>> recommended @type
>>>>>>>>>>>> values but still allow to use other, project specific ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But this is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not exactly the same as having an explicit element with a
>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additional remarks:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - the <eg> tags live in the realm of *tagdocs*, whereas
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cit> are in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the realm of *core*.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tagdocs were bound in purpose to electronic specifications
>>>>>>>>>>>>> documenting XML tags (like the guidelines themselves)...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus in the present form they couldn't be used for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoding
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> classical litterary work like Furetière etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - the attribute @type="exemple" is a perfectly valid way
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of keeping
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the distinction...
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would only blur other borders if one would move
>>>>>>>>>>>> <eg> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> *tagdocs* to *core*. And it would not solve the translation
>>>>>>>>>>>> case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Basically it's case of the problem initially noted by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sperberg-McQueen
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Burnard 1995:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The pursuit of simplicity has led to two conflicting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> patterns in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> development of the TEI tag set (...) As applied by the TEI,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Occam's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Razor leads to the merger of similar elements into single
>>>>>>>>>>>>> elements,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly differentiated with a type attribute (...) however
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (...) In
>>>>>>>>>>>>> several instances, a very powerful general notation which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cumbersome in some common simple cases has been supplemented by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specialized tags which handle those common cases in a simpler
>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The <cit> tag is for many this "powerful general notation",
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it encodes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the full information without requiring an additional
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <exemple> element,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but for Geoffrey it proves cumbersome. But imho
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sperberg-McQueen and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Burnard 1995 overlooked the fact that restraining elements
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and adding
>>>>>>>>>>>>> attributes is as much a way of "multipticanda entia" as adding
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shorthand
>>>>>>>>>>>>> elements. The complexity is just there however you look at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. *To sum
>>>>>>>>>>>>> up the common sense notions "exemple" and "citation" are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the XML tags <eg> and <cit> themselves are only what your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decides them to be, and right now the community tradition
>>>>>>>>>>>>> has <cit> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an all purpose typable tag and <eg> as a rare element from a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specialised
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subrealm...*
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the issue is not so much having a general notation,
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the
>>>>>>>>>>>> real issue is that <cit> means something completely
>>>>>>>>>>>> different when used
>>>>>>>>>>>> in text compared to its use in dictionaries. And the
>>>>>>>>>>>> definition covers
>>>>>>>>>>>> only one of these uses (the first one).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So I think there are two possibilities:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Leave the definition of <cit> as it is, and create (a)
>>>>>>>>>>>> new element(s)
>>>>>>>>>>>> for the use in dictionaries.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1a) Create at least <translation> and <example> elements.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1b) Create a new "powerful general notation" element for
>>>>>>>>>>>> the use in
>>>>>>>>>>>> dictionaries (for which I don’t have a good name).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Extend the definition of <cit> to cover its special use
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> context of dictionaries.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think there is something to having <cit> with its current
>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>> defined semantics, so in an ideal world I would probably
>>>>>>>>>>>> tend to 1b).
>>>>>>>>>>>> But then this would cause a lot of trouble for existing
>>>>>>>>>>>> projects, with
>>>>>>>>>>>> only limited benefits, as one can distinguish <cit> inside
>>>>>>>>>>>> and outside
>>>>>>>>>>>> of dictionary entries quite easily, so I think I’d go with
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2), and
>>>>>>>>>>>> probably mention the recommended values of @type="example" and
>>>>>>>>>>>> @type="translation" in that course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Frederik
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 12/10/2015 19:29, williams a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Lou, and all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My grounds are those of being a lexicographer working on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both modern
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and historical sources.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite simply, citations quote, more or less well. Johnson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used them to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add prestige, and was apt to rewrite to suit. In more literary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dictionaries, the citation idea of adding prestige
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continues. However,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a dictionary that seeks to give decoding and encoding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an example serves ease with understanding the definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoding to exemplify usage. Most often, collocational
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implicit in the example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Examples were often crafted, they now come from a corpus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and so could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be given a reference, although they will often have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lightened and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not an exact quote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, the two point to very different notions. Furetière is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fascinating in that he gives extensives examples, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invaluable in terms of information content. He, and more often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Basnage, also cites. Two different approaches, two different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strategies. Examples are an integral part of the crafting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would send the wrong message.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, we simply do not cite, abut do exemplify. We also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indeed have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Revisiting the guidelines would help, but an example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> element would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closer to what is happening in real life lexicography, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happening in the past before prescriptivism took over.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> raise this in the context of ENeL too as our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retrodigitalisation group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must tackle such things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An element would allow us to add attributers as to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, and ease the load on information extraction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geoffrey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Geoffrey WILLIAMS. MSc, PhD */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> President of the EvalHum Initiative /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /www.evalhum.eu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.evalhum.eu/><http://www.evalhum.eu/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.evalhum.eu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.evalhum.eu/><http://www.evalhum.eu/>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LiCoRN Research :www.licorn-ubs.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.licorn-ubs.com/><http://www.licorn-ubs.com/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /www.evalhum.eu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.evalhum.eu/><http://www.evalhum.eu/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /www.ressh.eu <http://www.ressh.eu/><http://www.ressh.eu/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.ressh.eu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.ressh.eu/><http://www.ressh.eu/>> / Twitter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @EvalHum / EvalHum on Facebook /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 12 oct. 2015 à 17:06, Laurent Romary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am in line with this and what Lou said and would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strongly support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the suggested extension concerning the semantic of <cit>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may add
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a whole range of possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> descriptors/modifiers/contextualisers to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> linguistic string (example or translation) in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dictionary ranging
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from simple domains indications to more complex syntactic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usage
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constraints.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Laurent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 12 oct. 2015 à 17:01, Frederik Elwert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Lou, all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At least, the wording of the definition of <cit> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misleading:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cit> (cited quotation) contains a quotation from some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> document, together with a bibliographic reference to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its source.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The code example at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-cit.html<http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-cit.html>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not include any reference to sources. In fact, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> covers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two use cases: <cit @type="example"> and <cit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @type="translation"> (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a mixed, i.e. nested use of both).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always felt rather uncomfortable with the use of <cit> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translations. While I see the difference in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hypothetical example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quotation from a corpus (Geoffrey’s initial point), I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feel that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still closer in meaning than a typical single-word
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translation in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bilingual dictionary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that either the definition of <cit> should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> broadened to cover these use cases that currently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradict the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wording, or that the semantic differences between a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> citation, an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a translation justify the adaptation/creation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> additional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elements. (For examples, <eg> seems indeed to be a good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contender, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it seems to be used mainly in the scope of ODDs.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Frederik
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 12.10.2015 um 16:37 schrieb Lou Burnard:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Geoffrey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On what grounds do you say "citations and examples are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same" ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only difference I can see is that a citation should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a mention of its source, while an example need not (but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often can).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Formally speaking, within the text of the dictionary,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumed the two to be indistinguishable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that the tagging with <cit> rather than simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <quote> or an <eg> seems a bit verbose. But bytes are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cheap, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precision is scarce...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/10/15 14:00, williams wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I work through Basnage de Beauval’s marvellous (1701)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enlargement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Furetière’s Dictionnaire Universel (1690), I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increasingly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frustrated by the lack of an element for examples.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Section 9.3.5.1 does not help. Citations and examples
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same, the former being the ‘best authors’ whilst the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeks to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate usage and is either from a corpus (current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach) or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made up (pre-corpus approach). Furetière and Basnage
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> citations and examples, so why can we not simply have an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> element for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the latter that would fit in an entry free, possibly the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easiest way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to handle the foibles of an early dictionary or be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> placed after a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <def> in a normal entry or sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is what, in a very simplified version of a more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entry, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would have to put:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <entry><form><orth>ABREVIATEUR</orth></form>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <def>Celui qui abrege un livre</def>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cittype="example"> <quote>Mr. de Sponde
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eveque de Pamiers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> est l'<hi>abreviateur</hi> de
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Baronius</quote></cit></entry>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <entry><form></form></entry>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it would be so much easier to have:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <entry><form><orth>ABREVIATEUR</orth></form>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <def>Celui qui abrege un livre</def>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <example>Mr. de Sponde Eveque de Pamiers est
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> l'<hi>abreviateur</hi> de Baronius</quote></example>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <entry><form></form></entry>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am sure there is a good reason as it could be said
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dictionary compiler is quoting him or herself, but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does seem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated and denying the essential difference between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> citation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exemplifying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geoffrey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Geoffrey WILLIAMS. MSc, PhD */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> President of the EvalHum Initiative /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /<http://www.evalhum.eu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.evalhum.eu/><http://www.evalhum.eu/>>www.evalhum.eu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.evalhum.eu/><http://www.evalhum.eu/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.evalhum.eu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.evalhum.eu/><http://www.evalhum.eu/>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LiCoRN Research
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :www.licorn-ubs.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.licorn-ubs.com/><http://www.licorn-ubs.com/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.licorn-ubs.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.licorn-ubs.com/><http://www.licorn-ubs.com/>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /www.evalhum.eu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.evalhum.eu/><http://www.evalhum.eu/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.evalhum.eu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.evalhum.eu/><http://www.evalhum.eu/>> /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.ressh.eu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.ressh.eu/><http://www.ressh.eu/>>www.ressh.eu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.ressh.eu/><http://www.ressh.eu/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.ressh.eu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.ressh.eu/><http://www.ressh.eu/>> /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Twitter @EvalHum / EvalHum on Facebook /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Frederik Elwert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Project Manager/SeNeReKo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Postdoctoral Researcher/KHK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Centre for Religious Studies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ruhr-University Bochum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Universitätsstr. 90a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D-44780 Bochum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phone +49(0)234 32-23024
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Laurent Romary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INRIA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Frederik Elwert
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Project Manager/SeNeReKo
>>>>>>>>>>>> Postdoctoral Researcher/KHK
>>>>>>>>>>>> Centre for Religious Studies
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ruhr-University Bochum
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Universitätsstr. 90a
>>>>>>>>>>>> D-44780 Bochum
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Phone +49(0)234 32-23024
>>>>>>>>>>> Laurent Romary
>>>>>>>>>>> INRIA
>>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Laurent Romary
>>>>>>> INRIA
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> Laurent Romary
>>>>> INRIA
>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> --
>>>> Romain LOTH
>>>> Ingénieur Développement "Text Mining"
>>>> DPI/SRDE/ISTEX-RD
>>>> INIST – CNRS
>
|
