Meeting ran a little late, and I've also got deeply into my CodeSharing tool.
February 19, 2013
Today I've made considerable prgress with my TEI CodeSharing idea; I've finished specifying the basic API, and I'm working out the details in the implementation of the XML part of the service. Once that's working, I'll finish documentation of the API, and then I'll be able to build a form-based interface on top of it. I've committed to a presentation on this at DHOXSS in July.
February 19th - 1145-345 (4 hours)
There are two groups, "argives" and "argivesVSTroy", both state the detail about how the term "argives" can mean not just people from Argos but also the Greeks fighting at Troy collectively. The question in mind is if we should keep this detail in both entries. If kept in just the ArgivesVSTroy entry, it could appropriately be used for any Argive group at Troy, whether it is the Group from Argos or the Greek soldiers at Troy in general. The benefit of taking it out of the "argives" entry could be the clear distinction between people of Argos and Greek soldiers at Troy when it is clear in the use of the term. For example any time it is the Argives involved in the Trojan war, we can use argivesVSTroy, stating it could be either the people of Argos specifically or the more general term. In other circumstances when we know it is just the people from Argos being mentioned, we can use the tag "argives" and the user would not be confused as to whether it is the people of Argos or Greek Soliders at Troy being mentioned. Wanted to see if there was outside reasoning for including it in both first, nothing has been taken out as of yet, only commented.
Cephallenians were originally tagged as "cephalleniansVSTroy" though they are the subjects of Odysseus and it's thought that they should be treated more like the similar group Achille's Myrmidons. I've changed the tag to just cephallenians and any tags leading to cephalleniansVSTroy have been changed. I only want to look into this issue because cephalleniansVSTroy is listed under GreeksVSTroy (though Myrmidons aren't) and I didn't want to change anything in the entries without finding out if there are other reasons they are grouped this way. The reasoning is that since they aren't necessarily people from one place but are subjects of Odysseus it would be better to code them this way.
Worked on group edits up until "g". notes on edits that may need to be looked into - Need to find if Aeanianians have a place of origin, argive redundancy? (will make separate blog post), bithynians and bebryces may be aka's of one another, but so far it's been left as two seperate entries (want to look into this more), wondering if "Cenaeans" should be a group, they don't show up in either text or on a google search, right now they are commented out since they aren't in use at the moment, Cephallenian debate - will make seperate blog post, Curetes and Curetians have been collapsed into one group under the XML "curetes", as the aka of Curetians was Curetes, old entry is still in but just commented out, and the info on Encheleans may be able to be more specific, probably requires more research.
February 18, 2013
Several hundred emails to deal with...
All our current values for <person>/@role have now been documented in the ODD file, and I've also put a system in place for reading that data out of the ODD file at transform time (using <xsl:document>) and using it to create the web display text. This will be handy in future, and it's a good approach because it encourages us to do more documentation, in more detail, in the ODD file, with the sense that it's going to be made public. The ODD file is now in the db, of course, which is also probably good. It might make sense to put the rng file there as well, and make both forms of documentation available from the site.
1) In the email that pops up when EB or SC clicks on an Email link, please add the following fields to the template:
Date:
Speaker:
Writer:
Typist:
Comments:
2) Please send the emails from this page to skell@uvic.ca and caitlinb@uvic.ca as well as ECH and MDH.
3) The question in the entry for "Paschal Sherman" is not showing up on the website, although it's there in the xml file. SMK can't figure out why ...
4) ECH needs a way to prioritize the Questions for Elders – e.g., questions on lexical suffixes are low priority.
5) If we start to get a large volume of feedback coming from the community, ECH would like a tool for speeding up entry of responses. Here are some initial ideas ...
-responses to Questions for Elders would appear on a new page on the website, instead of coming as email responses
-for each response, the editor (likely ECH or SMK) could select from options like
-ignore
-defer
-add to existing entry as editorial note
-add to existing entry as new <def>
-add to existing <def> as new <bibl>
-add to existing entry as new pron:seg type=“n”
-add whole new entry in new-data-2013.xml
-Please add a menu button for accessing the Verbs page.
-Please make the page title “Verb list” instead of “Word list”.
-Add an explanatory line below the title: This list includes the verb forms recorded in Dale Kinkade's Nxaʔamxcín materials.
-We don't want to combine the verb list with the Questions for Elders page. But we do need a way to mark which verb forms EB, SC, and PCS have already reviewed. SMK suggests the following:
If an entry contains psn:EB, psn:SC, or psn:PCS (i.e., they have commented on it, and we have recorded their input in the entry), flag it on the verbs page as reviewed – perhaps with an icon (a checkmark?) next to the editing status “traffic light”?
-We will eventually add a separate verb paradigms page.
-We've figured out a better way to identify verbs in the data, based on the transitive object and subject endings. Now we just need to finalize our list of those endings, and figure out how to work around endings like “-n” which could be one of many morphemes.