[Xerte] Re: Dictionary Web Service

[Julian Tenney]

Then you need an agreed taxonomy for all words...

From: xerte-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk [mailto:xerte-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Dave Burnett
Sent: 04 February 2011 13:21
To: Xerte list
Subject: [Xerte] Re: Dictionary Web Service

Maybe the client has to pass or set a global a disambiguation parameter:

programming:constructor

Else they get the whole list.




> From: Julian.Tenney at nottingham.ac.uk
> To: xerte at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 13:11:05 +0000
> Subject: [Xerte] Re: Dictionary Web Service
>
> Quite. You have to do:
>
> Constuctor:
> 1. A man building something
> 2. The function that initiates a class in OOP
>
> Which might render the whole thing useless. Normally my ever-so-simple ideas don't turn out to be so simple...
>
> The word 'set' for example has 464 definitions...
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xerte-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk [mailto:xerte-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Fred Riley
> Sent: 04 February 2011 12:21
> To: Xerte discussion list
> Subject: [Xerte] Re: Dictionary Web Service
>
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xerte mailing list
> Xerte at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/xerte
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xerte mailing list
> Xerte at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/xerte
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.
>
> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
> may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system:
> you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
> University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/xerte/attachments/20110204/612cd5a3/attachment.html>