LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for TEI-L Archives


TEI-L Archives

TEI-L Archives


TEI-L@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEI-L Home

TEI-L Home

TEI-L  October 2015

TEI-L October 2015

Subject:

Re: Examples, and NOT citations in dictionaries

From:

Martin Holmes <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Martin Holmes <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 24 Oct 2015 10:43:48 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (730 lines)

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
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991
April 1991
March 1991
February 1991
January 1991
December 1990
November 1990
October 1990
September 1990
August 1990
July 1990
June 1990
April 1990
March 1990
February 1990
January 1990

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager