[tei-council] Chapter 9 - Dictionaries

[Lou's Laptop]

[There are a couple of points here on which I find myself unable to 
answer Brett very convincingly  -- input from Council would be welcomed!]

Brett Zamir wrote:
> I didn't see any mention of glossaries in this chapter. Perhaps a link 
> to 4.7 Back Matter which mentions <div type="glossary"> would be 
> helpful for people just looking to encode a glossary and a discussion 
> of whether the tags in this chapter would be suitable or not for a 
> glossary. If it would be suitable, maybe the chapter could be renamed 
> to include "Glossaries" as well.
I agree . I've added a few words on uses for this module. I dont think 
we need rename the chapter though, at this stage...
>
> The definition for <lbl> (not in the source) seems to have a colon it 
> shouldn't after "synonyms" in "...approximately, synonyms, etc.")
>

Fixed.

> *9.1 - Dictionary Body and Overall Structure*
>
> 1) Given the example's use of <div type="dictionary"> for bilingual 
> dictionaries, is this @type attribute to be added for other 
> dictionaries? I think clarification would be helpful here.
>
This example seems both misleading and misplaced. I've moved and 
clarified it.

> 2) Since <sense> is defined (not in the source) as grouping info 
> related to "definitions, examples, and translation equivalents", while 
> I see <cit type="example"> used, what about also allowing <eg>? Maybe 
> an example could also be given of how a translation equivalent would 
> be encoded (e.g., with @xml:lang)? And are these really "citations"?
> *
> *
I agree that there is a case to be made for permitting <eg> here -- it 
is permitted, in fact if the appropriate modules are included in the 
schema. There is clearly some overlap in meaning between <eg> and 
<quote> in this context, though most dictionaries tend to prefer to use 
real life quotations rather than made up examples, which is why <cit> 
is  proposed: this element also gives the opportunity of associating a 
quotation with its source, or some other structure. 

There is an example of a translation equivalent in the discussion of the 
word "remoulade" (though not a very clear one I agree) at 9.3.3.1
> *9.2.1 Hierarchical Levels*
>
> There is this line with no example following it: "The hierarchical 
> levels of dictionary entries are declared as shown in the following
> schema fragment".
I've reworded this a bit.

>
> *9.2.2 Groups and Constituents*
>
> Are encodings such as the text has of <subc>VP2A</subc> obvious to 
> dictionary encoders? Otherwise, I think it might be nice to have this 
> explained (or omitted) since <subc> isn't introduced here (<pos> was 
> at least one of the examples in the definition). Subsequent examples 
> also use <subc> without explanation (until quite a bit later).
>
You may have missed the sentence

"For the elements which appear within the <gi>form</gi> and <gi>gramGrp</gi>
elements of this and other  examples, see below, section <ptr 
target="#DITPFO"/>, and section<ptr target="#DITPGR"/>. "

which precdes this example -- or maybe it needs repeating?

> *9.3.1 Information on Written and Spoken Forms*
>
> 1) The line "The formal declarations for the elements of the 
> <gi>form</gi> group are these" is not followed by the declarations.

Ooops, another formatting error. Thanks!
>
> 2) Neither are there declarations after the line, "The classes of 
> morphological elements, and of elements allowed within the
> <gi>form</gi> group, are declared thus"
Ditto.
>
> *9.3.2 Grammatical information*
>
> 1) In this section and in the example in the reference at 
> http://tei.oucs.ox.ac.uk/P5/Guidelines-web/en/html/ref-subc.html there 
> is <subc> with a value of "t ind" (the former has two examples). Is 
> "ind" to stand for "indicative"? If so, shouldn't that be under <mood>?
I don't know what "t ind" means. But I'll ask the person responsible for 
this particular example to clarify it.

>
> 2) Should there be a @type on <gram>de</gram> correlating to the 
> <colloc type="prep"> on the previous example?
>
yes, it should be type=collocPrep or something similar. have added it.

> *9.3.4 Etymological Information
>
> *Is "<lang>F</lang> fr. <lang>ML</lang>" correct?
Yes, regrettably. The "fr." is short for "from" I assume.

>
> *9.3.5.1 Examples*
>
> If <quote> can also be used within <cit> within a dictionary entry, 
> then the definition at 
> http://tei.oucs.ox.ac.uk/P5/Guidelines-web/en/html/ref-quote.html 
> would seem to be inadequate, as such a "quote" is not an external 
> reference.
Why do you say that? I dont understand what you mean by "not an external 
reference".

> (I don't see why a new tag is not used instead of <cit> and <quote>, 
> by the way, unless the dictionary is actually doing a citation; and in 
> regular circumstances, if <cit> is supposed to contain an external 
> quotation, I would think that <q> should be ruled out in favor of 
> <quote> since we know that a citation is an external reference).
>

This makes no sense to me, I'm afraid. a <cit> combines a quotation from 
somewhere else with additional information about where it came from. The 
quotation might be represented by either a <q> or a <quote>.
> *9.3.5.2 Usage Information and Other Labels*
>
> I think this section ought to have at least one example with <lbl>, 
> and a comparison of its usage in contrast with that of <usg>.
>
I agree. I will ask!


> *9.3.5.3 Cross References to Other Entries*
>
> I changed the line
>
> "In some cases, the form in the definition is inflected, and thus 
> <gi>ref</gi> must be used, as here"
>
> to:
>
> "In some cases, the form in the definition is inflected, and thus 
> <gi>ref</gi> must be used to refer to the specific forms, as here"
>
> but was not sure why this was apparently referring to multiple sense 
> of the word rather than different forms of the word. Sorry if this 
> should be obvious...
I've added the phrase "to indicate more precisely the intended target"

>
> *9.5.1 Editorial View*
>
> For the line relating to the editorial view,
>
>     "Apart from the characters or graphics in the source text, nothing 
> else should appear as content in the document, although it may be 
> given in attribute values."
>
> and
>
>     "Removing the tags from such a transcription will leave all and 
> only the characters of the source text, in their original sequence",
>
> ...won't there be some exceptions with elements such as <note> (when 
> used for transcriber commentary purposes)? I understand this is 
> probably more about transcribing the original details, but maybe 
> mention should be made of elements usable for transcriber commentary 
> and information?
>
Yes. This is one of the sections of this chapter that makes me feel 
particularly uneasy. It requires more attention than we can currently 
provide however to sort this out, and it is not actually  wrong, so I am 
not disposed to make any changes for this release!