[Xerte] Re: Dictionary Web Service

[Fred Riley]

> I don't think the goal ought to be to try and produce a glossary of
> everything. Relying on existing sources is problematic because often
> folk want a particular definition, to highlight a particular point, or
> to nuance the wording in a particular way. I'm thinking pretty lo-fi, a
> database table with maybe as little as two fields 'word' and 'defn' and
> some simple methods of adding words and finding defns. Then that
> content can live outside of the actual content that presents it, and
> that solves the problem of this stuff living inside pieces of content,
> and makes it reusable...

I can see exactly what you're after, but I just don't think it would be that simple because glossary terms will have different definitions in different contexts. The term 'constructor', say, means one thing in a programming sense, another in a built environment sense, and probably appears in other subjects I know nothing about. Or take 'spin', which has a specific meaning in quantum physics, another in politics, another in engineering, and so on. So your database would have to cater for this. Then you'll have contributors arguing over correct definitions and you might get 'edit wars' as Wikipedia famously has unless you allow for multiple definitions by contributor (A says X means Y, but B says X means Z, etc) and maybe source as you'd not want to not use existing glossaries. I can see quite a few tables in any database. 

I'm not saying it's not feasible, I just don't think it'd be as wash 'n' go as you think. It is desirable, certainly, for the reasons you've outlined, and as you say would fit in nicely with the uni OER agenda. 

Fred