I noticed there was a need to convert the spelling field of the open-scriptures strongs hebrew into hebrew. I can do that. I have my own version of the dictionary I did a few years back. I used my own encoding, which makes the distinction between esoteric things like the difference between a dagesh indicating doubling and a bgdkpt dagesh. I have several conversion routines to go from Strongs encoding, my encoding, and UTF8 (among other character codes). So it should be an easy matter to do.
The current versions are PHP5 :).
Also, looking at the data, converting to simple XML should be easy with a script.
I looked at the strongs-dictionary.xhtml. Here is an example entry:
<li value='5629' id='ot:5629'><i title="{seh'-rakh}"
xml:lang="hbo">cerach</i> from <a href='#ot:5628'><i title="{saw-
rakh'}" xml:lang="hbo">carach</i></a>; a redundancy: <span
class="kjv_def">remnant</span>.</li>
Do you just want the spellings transliterated to עִבְרִת ? So cerach
would become סֶרַח and carach would become סָרַח ?
Or would you like another attribute or tag? Tell me how you would
like it. I have these UTF8 Hebrew spellings in a mysql database
indexed by strongs numbers. So it would be a trivial matter to parse
strongs-dictionar.xhtml with PHP5 XML, access the database, and pull
out the spellings. Each record could be formatted as you would like
it.
I may not have all the spellings, but at least 90%. I could insert a
"FIXME" to each place it is needed.
I noticed that the greek portion of strongs-dictionary.xhtml did not
have UTF-8 spellings. Why?
Darrell
On Mar 22, 7:35 am, Darrell Smith <sceptreofju...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I noticed there was a need to convert the spelling field of the open-scriptures strongs hebrew into hebrew. I can do that. I have my own version of the dictionary I did a few years back. I used my own encoding, which makes the distinction between esoteric things like the difference between a dagesh indicating doubling and a bgdkpt dagesh. I have several conversion routines to go from Strongs encoding, my encoding, and UTF8 (among other character codes). So it should be an easy matter to do.
> The current versions are PHP5 :).
> Also, looking at the data, converting to simple XML should be easy with a script.
Hey Darrell,
Thanks for your eagerness and key expertise that you have dedicated to this
important data set.
Have you seen CrossWire's Strong's data which Troy pointed us to?
http://crosswire.org/svn/sword-tools/trunk/flashtools/ Perhaps with your data you can assist them refine theirs, which apparently
has some problems with Hebrew pointings. I think the key here is to work
together to formulate a canonical source for Strong's Hebrew dictionary
encoded in UTF-8 and XML, which does not currently exist as far as I know.
(One exists for Greek, and it is being maintained by Ulrik Sandborg-Petersen
at <http://ulrikp.dk/strongsgreek/> and <
http://files.morphgnt.org/strongs-dictionary/>, as I'll mention again
below.)
The XHTML document I generated was just a draft/prototype for a unified
Greek/Hebrew Strong's dictionary. We don't have to go with the same
structure, but I think utilizing the semantics available in XHTML (plus a
few Microformats) is beneficial both for viewing the data and utilizing
existing tools to process the data. However, if we need to develop a custom
XML vocabulary to more accurately represent the data, then whatever is best.
I would like input from Troy at CrossWire and from James and Ulrik too on
this. Let's start up some discussion on the best way to represent Strong's
dictionary which will be the most repurposeable and able to be integrated
with other data sets.
Yes, I think that we should go with the UTF-8 text in Greek and Hebrew
instead of ASCII transliterations. Transliterations, if included, should be
subordinate to the source language data.
As far as the Greek text in the sample XHTML document... it was being pulled
from the CrossWire ASCII Strong's data, and so that's why it's not UTF-8.
Ulrik Sandborg-Peterson is actively editing and maintaining an XML version
of Strong's Greek dictionary, so we should try to assist him in his efforts
as far as Greek is concerned.
Ideally, I think there should be a collaborative effort among scholars and
developers like us to create a definitive integrated Strong's dictionary of
Greek and Hebrew, one that would be the universally-recognized go-to
resource for obtaining Strong's data. One location where corrections are
submitted, and one location where we can get the latest most accurate
version. James Tauber and Ulrik Sandborg-Petersen have been working on a
generalized system for storing Strong's numbers aligned with other lemma
identification systems. It would be great if they could write in and let us
know how their efforts are going and if we can assist them in their
collation of lemma data.
> I looked at the strongs-dictionary.xhtml. Here is an example entry:
> <li value='5629' id='ot:5629'><i title="{seh'-rakh}"
> xml:lang="hbo">cerach</i> from <a href='#ot:5628'><i title="{saw-
> rakh'}" xml:lang="hbo">carach</i></a>; a redundancy: <span
> class="kjv_def">remnant</span>.</li>
> Do you just want the spellings transliterated to עִבְרִת ? So cerach
> would become סֶרַח and carach would become סָרַח ?
> Or would you like another attribute or tag? Tell me how you would
> like it. I have these UTF8 Hebrew spellings in a mysql database
> indexed by strongs numbers. So it would be a trivial matter to parse
> strongs-dictionar.xhtml with PHP5 XML, access the database, and pull
> out the spellings. Each record could be formatted as you would like
> it.
> I may not have all the spellings, but at least 90%. I could insert a
> "FIXME" to each place it is needed.
> I noticed that the greek portion of strongs-dictionary.xhtml did not
> have UTF-8 spellings. Why?
> Darrell
> On Mar 22, 7:35 am, Darrell Smith <sceptreofju...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Weston,
> > I noticed there was a need to convert the spelling field of the
> open-scriptures strongs hebrew into hebrew. I can do that. I have my own
> version of the dictionary I did a few years back. I used my own encoding,
> which makes the distinction between esoteric things like the difference
> between a dagesh indicating doubling and a bgdkpt dagesh. I have several
> conversion routines to go from Strongs encoding, my encoding, and UTF8
> (among other character codes). So it should be an easy matter to do.
> > The current versions are PHP5 :).
> > Also, looking at the data, converting to simple XML should be easy with a
> script.
I looked at Flash Tools. It is equivalent to what I did with CPP (with lex and Yacc) and flat file databases back in 1995. The MySQL database I have now is much more sophisticated than theirs with more work done on definitions, derivations, and family groupings. It is patterned after the BDB lexicon.
Scripting languages such as perl, php, python are more suitable for this type of application than cumbersome CPP.
Darrell
--- On Sun, 3/22/09, Weston Ruter <westonru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Weston Ruter <westonru...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Strongs Hebrew into Hebrew
> To: "Darrell Smith" <sceptreofju...@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Ulrik Sandborg-Petersen" <ulr...@hum.aau.dk>, "Troy A. Griffitts" <scr...@crosswire.org>, open-scriptures@googlegroups.com, "James Tauber" <jtau...@jtauber.com>, "Sean Boisen" <sean.boi...@gmail.com>
> Date: Sunday, March 22, 2009, 6:10 PM
> Hey Darrell,
> Thanks for your eagerness and key expertise that you have
> dedicated to this
> important data set.
> Have you seen CrossWire's Strong's data which Troy
> pointed us to?
> http://crosswire.org/svn/sword-tools/trunk/flashtools/ > Perhaps with your data you can assist them refine theirs,
> which apparently
> has some problems with Hebrew pointings. I think the key
> here is to work
> together to formulate a canonical source for Strong's
> Hebrew dictionary
> encoded in UTF-8 and XML, which does not currently exist as
> far as I know.
> (One exists for Greek, and it is being maintained by Ulrik
> Sandborg-Petersen
> at <http://ulrikp.dk/strongsgreek/> and <
> http://files.morphgnt.org/strongs-dictionary/>, as
> I'll mention again
> below.)
> The XHTML document I generated was just a draft/prototype
> for a unified
> Greek/Hebrew Strong's dictionary. We don't have to
> go with the same
> structure, but I think utilizing the semantics available in
> XHTML (plus a
> few Microformats) is beneficial both for viewing the data
> and utilizing
> existing tools to process the data. However, if we need to
> develop a custom
> XML vocabulary to more accurately represent the data, then
> whatever is best.
> I would like input from Troy at CrossWire and from James
> and Ulrik too on
> this. Let's start up some discussion on the best way to
> represent Strong's
> dictionary which will be the most repurposeable and able to
> be integrated
> with other data sets.
> Yes, I think that we should go with the UTF-8 text in Greek
> and Hebrew
> instead of ASCII transliterations. Transliterations, if
> included, should be
> subordinate to the source language data.
> As far as the Greek text in the sample XHTML document... it
> was being pulled
> from the CrossWire ASCII Strong's data, and so
> that's why it's not UTF-8.
> Ulrik Sandborg-Peterson is actively editing and maintaining
> an XML version
> of Strong's Greek dictionary, so we should try to
> assist him in his efforts
> as far as Greek is concerned.
> Ideally, I think there should be a collaborative effort
> among scholars and
> developers like us to create a definitive integrated
> Strong's dictionary of
> Greek and Hebrew, one that would be the
> universally-recognized go-to
> resource for obtaining Strong's data. One location
> where corrections are
> submitted, and one location where we can get the latest
> most accurate
> version. James Tauber and Ulrik Sandborg-Petersen have been
> working on a
> generalized system for storing Strong's numbers aligned
> with other lemma
> identification systems. It would be great if they could
> write in and let us
> know how their efforts are going and if we can assist them
> in their
> collation of lemma data.
> > Do you just want the spellings transliterated to
> עִבְרִת ? So cerach
> > would become סֶרַח and carach would become
> סָרַח ?
> > Or would you like another attribute or tag? Tell me
> how you would
> > like it. I have these UTF8 Hebrew spellings in a mysql
> database
> > indexed by strongs numbers. So it would be a trivial
> matter to parse
> > strongs-dictionar.xhtml with PHP5 XML, access the
> database, and pull
> > out the spellings. Each record could be formatted as
> you would like
> > it.
> > I may not have all the spellings, but at least 90%. I
> could insert a
> > "FIXME" to each place it is needed.
> > I noticed that the greek portion of
> strongs-dictionary.xhtml did not
> > have UTF-8 spellings. Why?
> > Darrell
> > On Mar 22, 7:35 am, Darrell Smith
> <sceptreofju...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Weston,
> > > I noticed there was a need to convert the
> spelling field of the
> > open-scriptures strongs hebrew into hebrew. I can do
> that. I have my own
> > version of the dictionary I did a few years back. I
> used my own encoding,
> > which makes the distinction between esoteric things
> like the difference
> > between a dagesh indicating doubling and a bgdkpt
> dagesh. I have several
> > conversion routines to go from Strongs encoding, my
> encoding, and UTF8
> > (among other character codes). So it should be an
> easy matter to do.
> > > The current versions are PHP5 :).
> > > Also, looking at the data, converting to simple
> XML should be easy with a
> > script.
I have been able to convert the Hebrew portion of strongs-
dictionary.xhtml to unicode spellings. It currently tromps over the
greek at the end of the file, but that is a simple fix. I'm too tired
to finish it now. But, it works. I'll attempt to get the greek
unicode spellings taken care of too.
Note that there are approximately 100 entries with the token NONE
embedded where spellings should be.
These are some Hebrew words and a few Greek words that reference them.
This will eventually be fixed.
Ζῆ Χριστός! יְבָרֶכְךָ יָהְוֶה
On May 15, 7:07 pm, Darrell Smith <sceptreofju...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have been able to convert the Hebrew portion of strongs-
> dictionary.xhtml to unicode spellings. It currently tromps over the
> greek at the end of the file, but that is a simple fix. I'm too tired
> to finish it now. But, it works. I'll attempt to get the greek
> unicode spellings taken care of too.
Excellent work, Darrell! You are doing so much to improve the Strong's data
available to the community. Having such a unified dictionary of both Hebrew
and Greek I think is an essential piece that has been missing. Now that it
has Unicode spellings instead of ASCII transliterations, the unified
dictionary is becoming very useful.
I'm eager for feedback from the community regarding the format and markup of
the file itself. I initially did it in XHTML with Microformats (spans with
named classes). Ulrik Sandborg-Peterson has an XML
edition<http://files.morphgnt.org/strongs-dictionary/>of Strong's
Greek Dictionary that has a custom vocabulary. I'm eager to
learn what the community thinks about the two approaches, which is more
useful. Of course it would be possible to simply write an XSLT stylesheet
that would produce the XHTML document from an XML vocabulary such as
Ulrik's. But it would be great if whichever markup methodology is used, that
it would work equally well for both Hebrew and Greek data, and that the
markup would allow the two datasets to refer to each other via
inter-document hyperlinks.
I would love Ulrik's input on this effort. He has done a great job of
maintaining Strong's Greek Dictionary in XML, and I know he has expressed
the desire to own this effort. I eagerly desire collaboration between us
(and any others out there who are working with Strong's data), so that we
can work together to produce such a definitive unified edition of Strong's
data in a digital format that is both easy to use and semantically rich.
(I know Strong's data isn't the most favorably viewed by scholars today, but
it is the most widely recognized and used, and so it is an essential data
set to have.)
Weston
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Darrell Smith <sceptreofju...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> Note that there are approximately 100 entries with the token NONE
> embedded where spellings should be.
> These are some Hebrew words and a few Greek words that reference them.
> This will eventually be fixed.
> Ζῆ Χριστός! יְבָרֶכְךָ יָהְוֶה
> On May 15, 7:07 pm, Darrell Smith <sceptreofju...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I have been able to convert the Hebrew portion of strongs-
> > dictionary.xhtml to unicode spellings. It currently tromps over the
> > greek at the end of the file, but that is a simple fix. I'm too tired
> > to finish it now. But, it works. I'll attempt to get the greek
> > unicode spellings taken care of too.
Just a quick note. I only recently joined this group, and I've been following the thread on Hebrew with interest. I am working with a couple of others (www.textonline.org) on an updating of Strongs (starting with Greek) gradually using a wiki format (assuming that your average contributor will find that an easier way to contribute, but we're open to suggestions on how to do this better in a way that is easy for non-techies).
I think some form of xml is great, but we have chosen to use MDF (Multi-Dictionary Format standard format markers) simply because it's easier to work with, especially for non-techies (which is why USFM is ubiquitous among Bible translators, I think). We plan to use Perl scripts to convert to TEI, TEX, and other formats for distribution. One reason for using MDF is that the source file can be edited by Lexique Pro, a nifty dictionary program written by some SIL folks in Africa.
Our source file is the Strong's TEI file from Crosswire, but we converted it to MDF and then standardized the spelling of Greek words based on the lemma from MorphGNT. (I assume that the lemma in that are not the concern of the German Bible Society.) In the process of doing that we added a few lemma that weren't in Strong's. In any case, our hope is to produce a respectable replacement of Strong's that can be integrated with texts that use Strong's numbers or are tagged by lemma. Hebrew is something we will tackle once we have our collaboration process down. I would welcome input, suggestions, etc., especially with regard to a collaboration mechanism. I hope to release the first version of the dictionary soon.
Weston Ruter wrote:
> Excellent work, Darrell! You are doing so much to improve the Strong's > data available to the community. Having such a unified dictionary of > both Hebrew and Greek I think is an essential piece that has been > missing. Now that it has Unicode spellings instead of ASCII > transliterations, the unified dictionary is becoming very useful.
> I'm eager for feedback from the community regarding the format and > markup of the file itself. I initially did it in XHTML with > Microformats (spans with named classes). Ulrik Sandborg-Peterson has > an XML edition <http://files.morphgnt.org/strongs-dictionary/> of > Strong's Greek Dictionary that has a custom vocabulary. I'm eager to > learn what the community thinks about the two approaches, which is > more useful. Of course it would be possible to simply write an XSLT > stylesheet that would produce the XHTML document from an XML > vocabulary such as Ulrik's. But it would be great if whichever markup > methodology is used, that it would work equally well for both Hebrew > and Greek data, and that the markup would allow the two datasets to > refer to each other via inter-document hyperlinks.
> I would love Ulrik's input on this effort. He has done a great job of > maintaining Strong's Greek Dictionary in XML, and I know he has > expressed the desire to own this effort. I eagerly desire > collaboration between us (and any others out there who are working > with Strong's data), so that we can work together to produce such a > definitive unified edition of Strong's data in a digital format that > is both easy to use and semantically rich.
> (I know Strong's data isn't the most favorably viewed by scholars > today, but it is the most widely recognized and used, and so it is an > essential data set to have.)
> Weston
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Darrell Smith > <sceptreofju...@yahoo.com <mailto:sceptreofju...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> The unified strongs dictionary (Hebrew and Greek in one file) with
> full unicode spellings is now available at
> Note that there are approximately 100 entries with the token NONE
> embedded where spellings should be.
> These are some Hebrew words and a few Greek words that reference them.
> This will eventually be fixed.
> Ζῆ Χριστός! יְבָרֶכְךָ יָהְוֶה
> On May 15, 7:07 pm, Darrell Smith <sceptreofju...@yahoo.com
> <mailto:sceptreofju...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > I have been able to convert the Hebrew portion of strongs-
> > dictionary.xhtml to unicode spellings. It currently tromps over the
> > greek at the end of the file, but that is a simple fix. I'm too
> tired
> > to finish it now. But, it works. I'll attempt to get the greek
> > unicode spellings taken care of too.
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for the note about your efforts. I read up on the TExT project, and I
really resonate with your stated mission. I added your project to the Open
Scriptures directory: http://openscriptures.org/directory/
Interesting idea to use a Wiki to manage the actual Strong's data. I hadn't
thought of that, but it seems like a very valid approach. We don't really
have an established system for contributions, aside from filing an issue and
attaching a patches. Some developers have commit access to the SVN repo
(including Darrell Smith, who has been checking in his great work on the
Strong's data). It would be great if we could do some more direct
collaboration on the same data set. James Tauber of MorphGNT has been
working on the Lemma Lattice tool which at some point will have the ability
for community collaboration to refine the data... though there doesn't seem
to be Strong's definitions, just associating the lemma with the Strong's
number: http://beta.morphgnt.org/lemma_lattice/subgraph/2/
Maybe we need a tool for Strong's data which would allow the community to
provide corrections and to have all changes versioned, like your approach
with the Wiki, but perhaps in a more structured way where the data can be
stored in a database which then can be rendered out into whatever format is
desired. If we had an online tool, then techies and non-techies alike would
be able to work on the data. What do you think?
Looking forward to collaborating with you...
Weston
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Daniel Owens <dhow...@pmbx.net> wrote:
> Just a quick note. I only recently joined this group, and I've been
> following the thread on Hebrew with interest. I am working with a couple
> of others (www.textonline.org) on an updating of Strongs (starting with
> Greek) gradually using a wiki format (assuming that your average
> contributor will find that an easier way to contribute, but we're open
> to suggestions on how to do this better in a way that is easy for
> non-techies).
> I think some form of xml is great, but we have chosen to use MDF
> (Multi-Dictionary Format standard format markers) simply because it's
> easier to work with, especially for non-techies (which is why USFM is
> ubiquitous among Bible translators, I think). We plan to use Perl
> scripts to convert to TEI, TEX, and other formats for distribution. One
> reason for using MDF is that the source file can be edited by Lexique
> Pro, a nifty dictionary program written by some SIL folks in Africa.
> Our source file is the Strong's TEI file from Crosswire, but we
> converted it to MDF and then standardized the spelling of Greek words
> based on the lemma from MorphGNT. (I assume that the lemma in that are
> not the concern of the German Bible Society.) In the process of doing
> that we added a few lemma that weren't in Strong's. In any case, our
> hope is to produce a respectable replacement of Strong's that can be
> integrated with texts that use Strong's numbers or are tagged by lemma.
> Hebrew is something we will tackle once we have our collaboration
> process down. I would welcome input, suggestions, etc., especially with
> regard to a collaboration mechanism. I hope to release the first version
> of the dictionary soon.
> Daniel
> Weston Ruter wrote:
> > Excellent work, Darrell! You are doing so much to improve the Strong's
> > data available to the community. Having such a unified dictionary of
> > both Hebrew and Greek I think is an essential piece that has been
> > missing. Now that it has Unicode spellings instead of ASCII
> > transliterations, the unified dictionary is becoming very useful.
> > I'm eager for feedback from the community regarding the format and
> > markup of the file itself. I initially did it in XHTML with
> > Microformats (spans with named classes). Ulrik Sandborg-Peterson has
> > an XML edition <http://files.morphgnt.org/strongs-dictionary/> of
> > Strong's Greek Dictionary that has a custom vocabulary. I'm eager to
> > learn what the community thinks about the two approaches, which is
> > more useful. Of course it would be possible to simply write an XSLT
> > stylesheet that would produce the XHTML document from an XML
> > vocabulary such as Ulrik's. But it would be great if whichever markup
> > methodology is used, that it would work equally well for both Hebrew
> > and Greek data, and that the markup would allow the two datasets to
> > refer to each other via inter-document hyperlinks.
> > I would love Ulrik's input on this effort. He has done a great job of
> > maintaining Strong's Greek Dictionary in XML, and I know he has
> > expressed the desire to own this effort. I eagerly desire
> > collaboration between us (and any others out there who are working
> > with Strong's data), so that we can work together to produce such a
> > definitive unified edition of Strong's data in a digital format that
> > is both easy to use and semantically rich.
> > (I know Strong's data isn't the most favorably viewed by scholars
> > today, but it is the most widely recognized and used, and so it is an
> > essential data set to have.)
> > Weston
> > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Darrell Smith
> > <sceptreofju...@yahoo.com <mailto:sceptreofju...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > The unified strongs dictionary (Hebrew and Greek in one file) with
> > full unicode spellings is now available at
> > Note that there are approximately 100 entries with the token NONE
> > embedded where spellings should be.
> > These are some Hebrew words and a few Greek words that reference
> them.
> > This will eventually be fixed.
> > Ζῆ Χριστός! יְבָרֶכְךָ יָהְוֶה
> > On May 15, 7:07 pm, Darrell Smith <sceptreofju...@yahoo.com
> > <mailto:sceptreofju...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > > I have been able to convert the Hebrew portion of strongs-
> > > dictionary.xhtml to unicode spellings. It currently tromps over the
> > > greek at the end of the file, but that is a simple fix. I'm too
> > tired
> > > to finish it now. But, it works. I'll attempt to get the greek
> > > unicode spellings taken care of too.
I do hope we can collaborate in some way since we are working with similar data. I am copying this email to the editors mailing list for TExT so that they can follow the discussion. I plan to add a link to openscriptures.org when I have a chance.
The collaboration mechanism that we use is one of those nagging questions that we haven't been able to finally resolve. The wiki made sense because more and more people are familiar with wikis, but the drawback is that populating a wiki with over 5,000 (or 10,000) entries is not so easy, and then exporting it to a usable form isn't either. I think we are open to a reasonable online alternative if anyone has any suggestions. If there were a more structured tool that had a versioned approach but was easier to use than SVN, particularly a web-based interface, I would be very interested.
I teach a class in two and a half hours and I'm not ready yet, so I'll cut it off here. Needless to say, we are quite interested in any ideas on how to facilitate collaboration between techies and non-techies.
Weston Ruter wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> Thanks for the note about your efforts. I read up on the TExT project, > and I really resonate with your stated mission. I added your project > to the Open Scriptures directory: http://openscriptures.org/directory/
> Interesting idea to use a Wiki to manage the actual Strong's data. I > hadn't thought of that, but it seems like a very valid approach. We > don't really have an established system for contributions, aside from > filing an issue and attaching a patches. Some developers have commit > access to the SVN repo (including Darrell Smith, who has been checking > in his great work on the Strong's data). It would be great if we could > do some more direct collaboration on the same data set. James Tauber > of MorphGNT has been working on the Lemma Lattice tool which at some > point will have the ability for community collaboration to refine the > data... though there doesn't seem to be Strong's definitions, just > associating the lemma with the Strong's number: > http://beta.morphgnt.org/lemma_lattice/subgraph/2/
> Maybe we need a tool for Strong's data which would allow the community > to provide corrections and to have all changes versioned, like your > approach with the Wiki, but perhaps in a more structured way where the > data can be stored in a database which then can be rendered out into > whatever format is desired. If we had an online tool, then techies and > non-techies alike would be able to work on the data. What do you think?
> Looking forward to collaborating with you...
> Weston
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Daniel Owens <dhow...@pmbx.net > <mailto:dhow...@pmbx.net>> wrote:
> Just a quick note. I only recently joined this group, and I've been
> following the thread on Hebrew with interest. I am working with a
> couple
> of others (www.textonline.org <http://www.textonline.org>) on an
> updating of Strongs (starting with
> Greek) gradually using a wiki format (assuming that your average
> contributor will find that an easier way to contribute, but we're open
> to suggestions on how to do this better in a way that is easy for
> non-techies).
> I think some form of xml is great, but we have chosen to use MDF
> (Multi-Dictionary Format standard format markers) simply because it's
> easier to work with, especially for non-techies (which is why USFM is
> ubiquitous among Bible translators, I think). We plan to use Perl
> scripts to convert to TEI, TEX, and other formats for
> distribution. One
> reason for using MDF is that the source file can be edited by Lexique
> Pro, a nifty dictionary program written by some SIL folks in Africa.
> Our source file is the Strong's TEI file from Crosswire, but we
> converted it to MDF and then standardized the spelling of Greek words
> based on the lemma from MorphGNT. (I assume that the lemma in that are
> not the concern of the German Bible Society.) In the process of doing
> that we added a few lemma that weren't in Strong's. In any case, our
> hope is to produce a respectable replacement of Strong's that can be
> integrated with texts that use Strong's numbers or are tagged by
> lemma.
> Hebrew is something we will tackle once we have our collaboration
> process down. I would welcome input, suggestions, etc., especially
> with
> regard to a collaboration mechanism. I hope to release the first
> version
> of the dictionary soon.
> Daniel
> Weston Ruter wrote:
> > Excellent work, Darrell! You are doing so much to improve the
> Strong's
> > data available to the community. Having such a unified dictionary of
> > both Hebrew and Greek I think is an essential piece that has been
> > missing. Now that it has Unicode spellings instead of ASCII
> > transliterations, the unified dictionary is becoming very useful.
> > I'm eager for feedback from the community regarding the format and
> > markup of the file itself. I initially did it in XHTML with
> > Microformats (spans with named classes). Ulrik Sandborg-Peterson has
> > an XML edition <http://files.morphgnt.org/strongs-dictionary/> of
> > Strong's Greek Dictionary that has a custom vocabulary. I'm eager to
> > learn what the community thinks about the two approaches, which is
> > more useful. Of course it would be possible to simply write an XSLT
> > stylesheet that would produce the XHTML document from an XML
> > vocabulary such as Ulrik's. But it would be great if whichever
> markup
> > methodology is used, that it would work equally well for both Hebrew
> > and Greek data, and that the markup would allow the two datasets to
> > refer to each other via inter-document hyperlinks.
> > I would love Ulrik's input on this effort. He has done a great
> job of
> > maintaining Strong's Greek Dictionary in XML, and I know he has
> > expressed the desire to own this effort. I eagerly desire
> > collaboration between us (and any others out there who are working
> > with Strong's data), so that we can work together to produce such a
> > definitive unified edition of Strong's data in a digital format that
> > is both easy to use and semantically rich.
> > (I know Strong's data isn't the most favorably viewed by scholars
> > today, but it is the most widely recognized and used, and so it
> is an
> > essential data set to have.)
> > Weston
> > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Darrell Smith
> > <sceptreofju...@yahoo.com <mailto:sceptreofju...@yahoo.com>
> <mailto:sceptreofju...@yahoo.com
> <mailto:sceptreofju...@yahoo.com>>> wrote:
> > The unified strongs dictionary (Hebrew and Greek in one
> file) with
> > full unicode spellings is now available at
> > Note that there are approximately 100 entries with the token
> NONE
> > embedded where spellings should be.
> > These are some Hebrew words and a few Greek words that
> reference them.
> > This will eventually be fixed.
> > Ζῆ Χριστός! יְבָרֶכְךָ יָהְוֶה
> > On May 15, 7:07 pm, Darrell Smith <sceptreofju...@yahoo.com
> <mailto:sceptreofju...@yahoo.com>
> > <mailto:sceptreofju...@yahoo.com
> <mailto:sceptreofju...@yahoo.com>>> wrote:
> > > I have been able to convert the Hebrew portion of strongs-
> > > dictionary.xhtml to unicode spellings. It currently tromps
> over the
> > > greek at the end of the file, but that is a simple fix.
> I'm too
> > tired
> > > to finish it now. But, it works. I'll attempt to get the
> greek
> > > unicode spellings taken care of too.
Daniel,
This is great news. It's so refreshing and encouraging when people are open
to working together on something like this.
It looks like the Lemma Lattice tool has some of the features you mentioned,
including versioning. I bet James Tauber has most of the code (in Django)
that would be needed to put together a change-tracking online editor for
Strong's data. He has mentioned that developing reusable web components
(apps) for working with linguistic data is one of the things he is focusing
on.
Now, it comes to mind that we need to nail down exactly what the goals are
for working with Strong's data. What are the things that need to be done
with the data? What have your goals been? A few possoble goals that come to
my mind are:
1. Create authoritative representation of the data that is Creative
Commons licensed
2. Provide Unicode spellings for entries (Darrell Smith has been doing
great work on this)
3. Structure the data in a way that makes it most accessible and usable
4. Combine Strong's dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek into a single
unified document
5. Revise the definitions and derivations so that they are more in line
with modern scholarship (this goal gets a little sticky)
Which of these have been your goals? In all of these goals, I think it is
essential to seek out to find others (like Ulrik) who have already been
working with the data, so that we can come together not only build upon what
each other has done, but to consolidate what we are doing as much as
possible so that both duplicated efforts and fragmented data can be avoided.
I've made the mistake in the past of setting out in isolation to do
such-and-such a project; once I stopped and looked around at the community,
I found others around me that they had already done the very thing I wanted
to do! Visibility and communication aren't things that we in the Open
community seem to do very well, and it is my hope that the Open Scriptures
group and directory can serve as a connection point between likeminded
people and similar projects.
> I do hope we can collaborate in some way since we are working with
> similar data. I am copying this email to the editors mailing list for
> TExT so that they can follow the discussion. I plan to add a link to
> openscriptures.org when I have a chance.
> The collaboration mechanism that we use is one of those nagging
> questions that we haven't been able to finally resolve. The wiki made
> sense because more and more people are familiar with wikis, but the
> drawback is that populating a wiki with over 5,000 (or 10,000) entries
> is not so easy, and then exporting it to a usable form isn't either. I
> think we are open to a reasonable online alternative if anyone has any
> suggestions. If there were a more structured tool that had a versioned
> approach but was easier to use than SVN, particularly a web-based
> interface, I would be very interested.
> I teach a class in two and a half hours and I'm not ready yet, so I'll
> cut it off here. Needless to say, we are quite interested in any ideas
> on how to facilitate collaboration between techies and non-techies.
> Daniel
> Weston Ruter wrote:
> > Hi Daniel,
> > Thanks for the note about your efforts. I read up on the TExT project,
> > and I really resonate with your stated mission. I added your project
> > to the Open Scriptures directory: http://openscriptures.org/directory/
> > Interesting idea to use a Wiki to manage the actual Strong's data. I
> > hadn't thought of that, but it seems like a very valid approach. We
> > don't really have an established system for contributions, aside from
> > filing an issue and attaching a patches. Some developers have commit
> > access to the SVN repo (including Darrell Smith, who has been checking
> > in his great work on the Strong's data). It would be great if we could
> > do some more direct collaboration on the same data set. James Tauber
> > of MorphGNT has been working on the Lemma Lattice tool which at some
> > point will have the ability for community collaboration to refine the
> > data... though there doesn't seem to be Strong's definitions, just
> > associating the lemma with the Strong's number:
> > http://beta.morphgnt.org/lemma_lattice/subgraph/2/
> > Maybe we need a tool for Strong's data which would allow the community
> > to provide corrections and to have all changes versioned, like your
> > approach with the Wiki, but perhaps in a more structured way where the
> > data can be stored in a database which then can be rendered out into
> > whatever format is desired. If we had an online tool, then techies and
> > non-techies alike would be able to work on the data. What do you think?
> > Looking forward to collaborating with you...
> > Weston
> > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Daniel Owens <dhow...@pmbx.net
> > <mailto:dhow...@pmbx.net>> wrote:
> > Just a quick note. I only recently joined this group, and I've been
> > following the thread on Hebrew with interest. I am working with a
> > couple
> > of others (www.textonline.org <http://www.textonline.org>) on an
> > updating of Strongs (starting with
> > Greek) gradually using a wiki format (assuming that your average
> > contributor will find that an easier way to contribute, but we're
> open
> > to suggestions on how to do this better in a way that is easy for
> > non-techies).
> > I think some form of xml is great, but we have chosen to use MDF
> > (Multi-Dictionary Format standard format markers) simply because it's
> > easier to work with, especially for non-techies (which is why USFM is
> > ubiquitous among Bible translators, I think). We plan to use Perl
> > scripts to convert to TEI, TEX, and other formats for
> > distribution. One
> > reason for using MDF is that the source file can be edited by Lexique
> > Pro, a nifty dictionary program written by some SIL folks in Africa.
> > Our source file is the Strong's TEI file from Crosswire, but we
> > converted it to MDF and then standardized the spelling of Greek words
> > based on the lemma from MorphGNT. (I assume that the lemma in that
> are
> > not the concern of the German Bible Society.) In the process of doing
> > that we added a few lemma that weren't in Strong's. In any case, our
> > hope is to produce a respectable replacement of Strong's that can be
> > integrated with texts that use Strong's numbers or are tagged by
> > lemma.
> > Hebrew is something we will tackle once we have our collaboration
> > process down. I would welcome input, suggestions, etc., especially
> > with
> > regard to a collaboration mechanism. I hope to release the first
> > version
> > of the dictionary soon.
> > Daniel
> > Weston Ruter wrote:
> > > Excellent work, Darrell! You are doing so much to improve the
> > Strong's
> > > data available to the community. Having such a unified dictionary
> of
> > > both Hebrew and Greek I think is an essential piece that has been
> > > missing. Now that it has Unicode spellings instead of ASCII
> > > transliterations, the unified dictionary is becoming very useful.
> > > I'm eager for feedback from the community regarding the format and
> > > markup of the file itself. I initially did it in XHTML with
> > > Microformats (spans with named classes). Ulrik Sandborg-Peterson
> has
> > > an XML edition <http://files.morphgnt.org/strongs-dictionary/> of
> > > Strong's Greek Dictionary that has a custom vocabulary. I'm eager
> to
> > > learn what the community thinks about the two approaches, which is
> > > more useful. Of course it would be possible to simply write an XSLT
> > > stylesheet that would produce the XHTML document from an XML
> > > vocabulary such as Ulrik's. But it would be great if whichever
> > markup
> > > methodology is used, that it would work equally well for both
> Hebrew
> > > and Greek data, and that the markup would allow the two datasets to
> > > refer to each other via inter-document hyperlinks.
> > > I would love Ulrik's input on this effort. He has done a great
> > job of
> > > maintaining Strong's Greek Dictionary in XML, and I know he has
> > > expressed the desire to own this effort. I eagerly desire
> > > collaboration between us (and any others out there who are working
> > > with Strong's data), so that we can work together to produce such a
> > > definitive unified edition of Strong's data in a digital format
> that
> > > is both easy to use and semantically rich.
> > > (I know Strong's data isn't the most favorably viewed by scholars
> > > today, but it is the most widely recognized and used, and so it
> > is an
> > > essential data set to have.)
> > > Weston
> > > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Darrell Smith
> > > <sceptreofju...@yahoo.com <mailto:sceptreofju...@yahoo.com>
> > <mailto:sceptreofju...@yahoo.com
> > <mailto:sceptreofju...@yahoo.com>>> wrote:
> > > The unified strongs dictionary (Hebrew and Greek in one
> > file) with
> > > full unicode spellings is now available at
> > > Note that there are approximately 100 entries with the token
> > NONE
> > > embedded where spellings should be.
> > > These are some Hebrew words and a few Greek words that
> > reference
One of the things that comes to mind is organizing the words by families (as with the BDB lexicon) for Greek as well as Hebrew. The languages are not flat but multi-dimensional. The Lemma Lattice will help in creating different views and the basic view should be familial. To paraphrase proverbs (from the Hebrew) "a gracious gift (gift of grace) is like a precious jewel, no matter how you turn it to look at it, it enlightens you."
All of which means getting away from flat-file representations and using databases and archiving the data as database files (SQL dumps or what not) with relational data included.
> Daniel,
> This is great news. It's so refreshing and encouraging when people are open
> to working together on something like this.
> It looks like the Lemma Lattice tool has some of the features you
> mentioned, including versioning. I bet James Tauber has most of the code
> (in Django) that would be needed to put together a change-tracking online
> editor for Strong's data. He has mentioned that developing reusable web
> components (apps) for working with linguistic data is one of the things he
> is focusing on.
> Now, it comes to mind that we need to nail down exactly what the goals are
> for working with Strong's data. What are the things that need to be done
> with the data? What have your goals been? A few possoble goals that come to
> my mind are:
> 1. Create authoritative representation of the data that is Creative
> Commons licensed
> 2. Provide Unicode spellings for entries (Darrell Smith has been doing
> great work on this)
> 3. Structure the data in a way that makes it most accessible and usable
> 4. Combine Strong's dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek into a single
> unified document
> 5. Revise the definitions and derivations so that they are more in line
> with modern scholarship (this goal gets a little sticky)
> Which of these have been your goals? In all of these goals, I think it is
> essential to seek out to find others (like Ulrik) who have already been
> working with the data, so that we can come together not only build upon
> what each other has done, but to consolidate what we are doing as much as
> possible so that both duplicated efforts and fragmented data can be
> avoided.
> I've made the mistake in the past of setting out in isolation to do
> such-and-such a project; once I stopped and looked around at the community,
> I found others around me that they had already done the very thing I wanted
> to do! Visibility and communication aren't things that we in the Open
> community seem to do very well, and it is my hope that the Open Scriptures
> group and directory can serve as a connection point between likeminded
> people and similar projects.
> > I do hope we can collaborate in some way since we are working with
> > similar data. I am copying this email to the editors mailing list for
> > TExT so that they can follow the discussion. I plan to add a link to
> > openscriptures.org when I have a chance.
> > The collaboration mechanism that we use is one of those nagging
> > questions that we haven't been able to finally resolve. The wiki made
> > sense because more and more people are familiar with wikis, but the
> > drawback is that populating a wiki with over 5,000 (or 10,000) entries
> > is not so easy, and then exporting it to a usable form isn't either. I
> > think we are open to a reasonable online alternative if anyone has any
> > suggestions. If there were a more structured tool that had a versioned
> > approach but was easier to use than SVN, particularly a web-based
> > interface, I would be very interested.
> > I teach a class in two and a half hours and I'm not ready yet, so I'll
> > cut it off here. Needless to say, we are quite interested in any ideas
> > on how to facilitate collaboration between techies and non-techies.
> > Daniel
> > Weston Ruter wrote:
> > > Hi Daniel,
> > > Thanks for the note about your efforts. I read up on the TExT project,
> > > and I really resonate with your stated mission. I added your project
> > > to the Open Scriptures directory: http://openscriptures.org/directory/
> > > Interesting idea to use a Wiki to manage the actual Strong's data. I
> > > hadn't thought of that, but it seems like a very valid approach. We
> > > don't really have an established system for contributions, aside from
> > > filing an issue and attaching a patches. Some developers have commit
> > > access to the SVN repo (including Darrell Smith, who has been checking
> > > in his great work on the Strong's data). It would be great if we could
> > > do some more direct collaboration on the same data set. James Tauber
> > > of MorphGNT has been working on the Lemma Lattice tool which at some
> > > point will have the ability for community collaboration to refine the
> > > data... though there doesn't seem to be Strong's definitions, just
> > > associating the lemma with the Strong's number:
> > > http://beta.morphgnt.org/lemma_lattice/subgraph/2/
> > > Maybe we need a tool for Strong's data which would allow the community
> > > to provide corrections and to have all changes versioned, like your
> > > approach with the Wiki, but perhaps in a more structured way where the
> > > data can be stored in a database which then can be rendered out into
> > > whatever format is desired. If we had an online tool, then techies and
> > > non-techies alike would be able to work on the data. What do you think?
> > > Looking forward to collaborating with you...
> > > Weston
> > > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Daniel Owens <dhow...@pmbx.net
> > > <mailto:dhow...@pmbx.net>> wrote:
> > > Just a quick note. I only recently joined this group, and I've been
> > > following the thread on Hebrew with interest. I am working with a
> > > couple
> > > of others (www.textonline.org <http://www.textonline.org>) on an
> > > updating of Strongs (starting with
> > > Greek) gradually using a wiki format (assuming that your average
> > > contributor will find that an easier way to contribute, but we're
> > open
> > > to suggestions on how to do this better in a way that is easy for
> > > non-techies).
> > > I think some form of xml is great, but we have chosen to use MDF
> > > (Multi-Dictionary Format standard format markers) simply because
> > > it's easier to work with, especially for non-techies (which is why USFM
> > > is ubiquitous among Bible translators, I think). We plan to use Perl
> > > scripts to convert to TEI, TEX, and other formats for
> > > distribution. One
> > > reason for using MDF is that the source file can be edited by
> > > Lexique Pro, a nifty dictionary program written by some SIL folks in
> > > Africa.
> > > Our source file is the Strong's TEI file from Crosswire, but we
> > > converted it to MDF and then standardized the spelling of Greek
> > > words based on the lemma from MorphGNT. (I assume that the lemma in
> > > that
> > are
> > > not the concern of the German Bible Society.) In the process of
> > > doing that we added a few lemma that weren't in Strong's. In any case,
> > > our hope is to produce a respectable replacement of Strong's that can
> > > be integrated with texts that use Strong's numbers or are tagged by
> > > lemma.
> > > Hebrew is something we will tackle once we have our collaboration
> > > process down. I would welcome input, suggestions, etc., especially
> > > with
> > > regard to a collaboration mechanism. I hope to release the first
> > > version
> > > of the dictionary soon.
> > > Daniel
> > > Weston Ruter wrote:
> > > > Excellent work, Darrell! You are doing so much to improve the
> > > Strong's
> > > > data available to the community. Having such a unified dictionary
> > of
> > > > both Hebrew and Greek I think is an essential piece that has been
> > > > missing. Now that it has Unicode spellings instead of ASCII
> > > > transliterations, the unified dictionary is becoming very useful.
> > > > I'm eager for feedback from the community regarding the format
> > > > and markup of the file itself. I initially did it in XHTML with
> > > > Microformats (spans with named classes). Ulrik Sandborg-Peterson
> > > > learn what the community thinks about the two approaches, which
> > > > is more useful. Of course it would be possible to simply write an
> > > > XSLT stylesheet that would produce the XHTML document from an XML
> > > > vocabulary such as Ulrik's. But it would be great if whichever
> > > markup
> > > > methodology is used, that it would work equally well for both
> > Hebrew
> > > > and Greek data, and that the markup would allow the two datasets
> > > > to refer to each other via inter-document hyperlinks.
> > > > I would love Ulrik's input on this effort. He has done a great
> > > job of
> > > > maintaining Strong's Greek Dictionary in XML, and I know he has
> > > > expressed the desire to own this effort. I eagerly desire
> > > > collaboration between us (and any others out there who are
> > > > working with Strong's data), so that we can work together to
> > > > produce such a definitive unified edition of Strong's data in a
Here's a comprehensive response to five emails in this thread.
Darrell,
It's great to have the actual language words, but you also overwrote the references: 2. אַב (Aramaic) corresponding to אָב: father. should say 'corresponding to 1:' for navigation purposes.
Now there's something else for me to compare.
Weston,
Yes, a standard format would be essential to have. I have a Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, in OSIS, with a lot of extra information. It is derived from David Instone-Brewer's 2-Letter Lookup PHP file (another format). The OSIS I use stretches the bounds a little, and since Bible Technologies has been dormant since March 2006, the promised lexicon format has not appeared.
Ulrik Sandborg-Peterson's is a good work. I have refered to it in my own work on the Greek.
Daniel,
The wiki idea may work, if each entry is packaged as a separate XML fragment, that could then be integrated into a complete file, or saved, entry-wise, in a database, indexed by the Strong number.
I'm attaching an XSLT style sheet, that will take an entry from my OSIS dictionary and transform it for display, along with a sample web page showing the display. Something like this could work very nicely.
I don't know anything about MDF, but perhaps transformations could be made to and from XML for storage.
Weston,
The idea of collaboration is great. I've already mentioned to Darrell that just the moral support is heartening. It's nice to know,=2 0after all this time working alone, that there really are others out there who share the same interest. Though, I've been on my own all this time, so I have no idea about working with SVN, or where the collaborative efforts could be posted.
One thing I forgot earlier was brought to mind by this post:
A few possoble goals that come to my mind are:
Create authoritative representation of the data that is Creative Commons licensed -- Authoritative is a key for me.? So much Bible data on the internet has been far below the standard of accuracy that any print publisher would tolerate.? Even some commercial Bible study programs are riddled with errors.
Provide Unicode spellings for entries (Darrell Smith has been doing great work on this) -- Unicode is equally important.? Though the conflict between 'Code what is written, not what is meant' and 'Code characters, not glyphs' leaves room for improvement.? (Characters are what is meant, glyphs are what is written.)
Structure the data in a way that makes it most accessible and usable -- The idea behind XML has been to have one base format that can be transformed into whatever is needed to be accessible and usable.? We need one solid core format.
Combine Strong's dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek into a single unified document -- I don't see that combined has any advantage over two side-by-side files.? As long as both are subject to the same strictures.
Revise the definitions and derivations so that they are more in line with modern scholarship (this goal gets a little sticky) -- Personally, I feel that any tampering with Strong's dictionaries should be done strictly in the notes, or additional material added to the entries, but clearly separate from the original.? Even including misspellings and typographical errors in numerical references.? Surely we have enough bytes available in our storage to facilitate this.
"List of people and projects working with Strong's data so that the
community can come together not only build upon what each other has done,
but to consolidate what we are doing as much as possible so that both
duplicated efforts and fragmented data can be avoided."
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 12:57 PM, <davidtro...@aol.com> wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> Here's a comprehensive response to five emails in this thread.
> Darrell,
> It's great to have the actual language words, but you also overwrote the
> references:
> 2. אַב (Aramaic) corresponding to אָב: father.
> should say 'corresponding to 1:' for navigation purposes.
> Now there's something else for me to compare.
> Weston,
> Yes, a standard format would be essential to have. I have a Strong's
> Hebrew Dictionary, in OSIS, with a lot of extra information. It is derived
> from David Instone-Brewer's 2-Letter Lookup PHP file (another format). The
> OSIS I use stretches the bounds a little, and since Bible Technologies has
> been dormant since March 2006, the promised lexicon format has not appeared.
> Ulrik Sandborg-Peterson's is a good work. I have refered to it in my own
> work on the Greek.
> Daniel,
> The wiki idea may work, if each entry is packaged as a separate XML
> fragment, that could then be integrated into a complete file, or saved,
> entry-wise, in a database, indexed by the Strong number.
> I'm attaching an XSLT style sheet, that will take an entry from my OSIS
> dictionary and transform it for display, along with a sample web page
> showing the display. Something like this could work very nicely.
> I don't know anything about MDF, but perhaps transformations could be made
> to and from XML for storage.
> Weston,
> The idea of collaboration is great. I've already mentioned to Darrell that
> just the moral support is heartening. It's nice to know, after all this
> time working alone, that there really are others out there who share the
> same interest. Though, I've been on my own all this time, so I have no idea
> about working with SVN, or where the collaborative efforts could be posted.
> Peace,
> David
> ------------------------------
> We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will
> you find? Explore *WhereItsAt.com*<http://www.whereitsat.com/?ncid=emlwenew00000001>
> .
Create authoritative representation of the data that is Creative Commons
> licensed
> -- Authoritative is a key for me. So much Bible data on the internet has
> been far below the standard of accuracy that any print publisher would
> tolerate. Even some commercial Bible study programs are riddled with
> errors.
This is the most important point for me too. To have a single,
authoritative, corrected, go-to data set.
Combine Strong's dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek into a single unified
> document
> -- I don't see that combined has any advantage over two side-by-side
> files. As long as both are subject to the same strictures.
My idea here is that it is easier to maintain concrete hyperlinks between
entries in the two dictionaries if they are located within the same
document.
Revise the definitions and derivations so that they are more in line with
> modern scholarship (this goal gets a little sticky)
> -- Personally, I feel that any tampering with Strong's dictionaries should
> be done strictly in the notes, or additional material added to the entries,
> but clearly separate from the original. Even including misspellings and
> typographical errors in numerical references. Surely we have enough bytes
> available in our storage to facilitate this.
I agree that we should focus on creating a pure digital copy of Strong's
original dictionaries. We can make corrections in another layer on top of
Strong's such as in the Lemma Lattice. If we have pure verbatim Strong's
data, then we can create errata document that provides the comments and
corrections to the original data, as you mention. Strong's dictionary data
is a standard, and we need keep that standard intact. If we want to improve
on the standard, that should be done via separate errata documents or new
diff editions that refer back to the canonical Strong's data. People will
disagree which entries are erroneous, but if we just restrict ourselves to
perfecting the data of the original Strong's dictionary, then we will avoid
much conflict.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:21 PM, <davidtro...@aol.com> wrote:
> Me again,
> One thing I forgot earlier was brought to mind by this post:
> A few possoble goals that come to my mind are:
> 1. Create authoritative representation of the data that is Creative
> Commons licensed
> -- Authoritative is a key for me. So much Bible data on the internet
> has been far below the standard of accuracy that any print publisher would
> tolerate. Even some commercial Bible study programs are riddled with
> errors.
> 2. Provide Unicode spellings for entries (Darrell Smith has been doing
> great work on this)
> -- Unicode is equally important. Though the conflict between 'Code
> what is written, not what is meant' and 'Code characters, not glyphs' leaves
> room for improvement. (Characters are what is meant, glyphs are what is
> written.)
> 3. Structure the data in a way that makes it most accessible and usable
> -- The idea behind XML has been to have one base format that can be
> transformed into whatever is needed to be accessible and usable. We need
> one solid core format.
> 4. Combine Strong's dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek into a single
> unified document
> -- I don't see that combined has any advantage over two side-by-side
> files. As long as both are subject to the same strictures.
> 5. Revise the definitions and derivations so that they are more in line
> with modern scholarship (this goal gets a little sticky)
> -- Personally, I feel that any tampering with Strong's dictionaries
> should be done strictly in the notes, or additional material added to the
> entries, but clearly separate from the original. Even including
> misspellings and typographical errors in numerical references. Surely we
> have enough bytes available in our storage to facilitate this.
> Peace,
> David
> ------------------------------
> We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will
> you find? Explore *WhereItsAt.com*<http://www.whereitsat.com/?ncid=emlwenew00000001>
> .
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Weston Ruter <westonru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> David, here are a few thoughts in response...
> Create authoritative representation of the data that is Creative Commons
>> licensed
>> -- Authoritative is a key for me. So much Bible data on the internet has
>> been far below the standard of accuracy that any print publisher would
>> tolerate. Even some commercial Bible study programs are riddled with
>> errors.
> This is the most important point for me too. To have a single,
> authoritative, corrected, go-to data set.
> Combine Strong's dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek into a single unified
>> document
>> -- I don't see that combined has any advantage over two side-by-side
>> files. As long as both are subject to the same strictures.
> My idea here is that it is easier to maintain concrete hyperlinks between
> entries in the two dictionaries if they are located within the same
> document.
> Revise the definitions and derivations so that they are more in line with
>> modern scholarship (this goal gets a little sticky)
>> -- Personally, I feel that any tampering with Strong's dictionaries should
>> be done strictly in the notes, or additional material added to the entries,
>> but clearly separate from the original. Even including misspellings and
>> typographical errors in numerical references. Surely we have enough bytes
>> available in our storage to facilitate this.
> I agree that we should focus on creating a pure digital copy of Strong's
> original dictionaries. We can make corrections in another layer on top of
> Strong's such as in the Lemma Lattice. If we have pure verbatim Strong's
> data, then we can create errata document that provides the comments and
> corrections to the original data, as you mention. Strong's dictionary data
> is a standard, and we need keep that standard intact. If we want to improve
> on the standard, that should be done via separate errata documents or new
> diff editions that refer back to the canonical Strong's data. People will
> disagree which entries are erroneous, but if we just restrict ourselves to
> perfecting the data of the original Strong's dictionary, then we will avoid
> much conflict.
> Weston
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:21 PM, <davidtro...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Me again,
>> One thing I forgot earlier was brought to mind by this post:
>> A few possoble goals that come to my mind are:
>> 1. Create authoritative representation of the data that is Creative
>> Commons licensed
>> -- Authoritative is a key for me. So much Bible data on the internet
>> has been far below the standard of accuracy that any print publisher would
>> tolerate. Even some commercial Bible study programs are riddled with
>> errors.
>> 2. Provide Unicode spellings for entries (Darrell Smith has been doing
>> great work on this)
>> -- Unicode is equally important. Though the conflict between 'Code
>> what is written, not what is meant' and 'Code characters, not glyphs' leaves
>> room for improvement. (Characters are what is meant, glyphs are what is
>> written.)
>> 3. Structure the data in a way that makes it most accessible and
>> usable
>> -- The idea behind XML has been to have one base format that can be
>> transformed into whatever is needed to be accessible and usable. We need
>> one solid core format.
>> 4. Combine Strong's dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek into a single
>> unified document
>> -- I don't see that combined has any advantage over two side-by-side
>> files. As long as both are subject to the same strictures.
>> 5. Revise the definitions and derivations so that they are more in
>> line with modern scholarship (this goal gets a little sticky)
>> -- Personally, I feel that any tampering with Strong's dictionaries
>> should be done strictly in the notes, or additional material added to the
>> entries, but clearly separate from the original. Even including
>> misspellings and typographical errors in numerical references. Surely we
>> have enough bytes available in our storage to facilitate this.
>> Peace,
>> David
>> ------------------------------
>> We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will
>> you find? Explore *WhereItsAt.com*<http://www.whereitsat.com/?ncid=emlwenew00000001>
>> .
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Weston Ruter <westonru...@gmail.com > <mailto:westonru...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> David, here are a few thoughts in response...
> Create authoritative representation of the data that is
> Creative Commons licensed
> -- Authoritative is a key for me. So much Bible data on the
> internet has been far below the standard of accuracy that any
> print publisher would tolerate. Even some commercial Bible
> study programs are riddled with errors.
> This is the most important point for me too. To have a single,
> authoritative, corrected, go-to data set.
> Combine Strong's dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek into a
> single unified document
> -- I don't see that combined has any advantage over two
> side-by-side files. As long as both are subject to the same
> strictures.
> My idea here is that it is easier to maintain concrete hyperlinks
> between entries in the two dictionaries if they are located within
> the same document.
> Revise the definitions and derivations so that they are more
> in line with modern scholarship (this goal gets a little sticky)
> -- Personally, I feel that any tampering with Strong's
> dictionaries should be done strictly in the notes, or
> additional material added to the entries, but clearly separate
> from the original. Even including misspellings and
> typographical errors in numerical references. Surely we have
> enough bytes available in our storage to facilitate this.
> I agree that we should focus on creating a pure digital copy of
> Strong's original dictionaries. We can make corrections in another
> layer on top of Strong's such as in the Lemma Lattice. If we have
> pure verbatim Strong's data, then we can create errata document
> that provides the comments and corrections to the original data,
> as you mention. Strong's dictionary data is a standard, and we
> need keep that standard intact. If we want to improve on the
> standard, that should be done via separate errata documents or new
> diff editions that refer back to the canonical Strong's data.
> People will disagree which entries are erroneous, but if we just
> restrict ourselves to perfecting the data of the original Strong's
> dictionary, then we will avoid much conflict.
> Weston
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:21 PM, <davidtro...@aol.com
> <mailto:davidtro...@aol.com>> wrote:
> Me again,
> One thing I forgot earlier was brought to mind by this post:
> A few possoble goals that come to my mind are:
> 1.
> Create authoritative representation of the data that is
> Creative Commons licensed
> -- Authoritative is a key for me. So much Bible data on
> the internet has been far below the standard of accuracy
> that any print publisher would tolerate. Even some
> commercial Bible study programs are riddled with errors.
> 2.
> Provide Unicode spellings for entries (Darrell Smith has
> been doing great work on this)
> -- Unicode is equally important. Though the conflict
> between 'Code what is written, not what is meant' and
> 'Code characters, not glyphs' leaves room for
> improvement. (Characters are what is meant, glyphs are
> what is written.)
> 3.
> Structure the data in a way that makes it most
> accessible and usable
> -- The idea behind XML has been to have one base format
> that can be transformed into whatever is needed to be
> accessible and usable. We need one solid core format.
> 4.
> Combine Strong's dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek into a
> single unified document
> -- I don't see that combined has any advantage over two
> side-by-side files. As long as both are subject to the
> same strictures.
> 5.
> Revise the definitions and derivations so that they are
> more in line with modern scholarship (this goal gets a
> little sticky)
> -- Personally, I feel that any tampering with Strong's
> dictionaries should be done strictly in the notes, or
> additional material added to the entries, but clearly
> separate from the original. Even including misspellings
> and typographical errors in numerical references. > Surely we have enough bytes available in our storage to
> facilitate this.
> Peace,
> David
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner.
> What will you find? Explore *WhereItsAt.com*
> <http://www.whereitsat.com/?ncid=emlwenew00000001>.
Weston Ruter wrote:
> David, here are a few thoughts in response...
> Create authoritative representation of the data that is Creative
> Commons licensed
> -- Authoritative is a key for me. So much Bible data on the
> internet has been far below the standard of accuracy that any
> print publisher would tolerate. Even some commercial Bible study
> programs are riddled with errors.
> This is the most important point for me too. To have a single, > authoritative, corrected, go-to data set.
I think this is where different projects should do different things. An authoritative Strong's text is a worthy goal. Our goal at TExT is to have a more modern alternative to Strongs, using Strongs as a base so that the dictionary is basically complete from start to finish. We will need to find a way to show which entries are TExT entries and which are Strong's.
> Combine Strong's dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek into a single
> unified document
> -- I don't see that combined has any advantage over two
> side-by-side files. As long as both are subject to the same
> strictures.
> My idea here is that it is easier to maintain concrete hyperlinks > between entries in the two dictionaries if they are located within the > same document.
To a certain extent this makes sense, but how would it work in a deployment of the content? For example, would you produce a single printed volume or a single SWORD module?
> Revise the definitions and derivations so that they are more in
> line with modern scholarship (this goal gets a little sticky)
> -- Personally, I feel that any tampering with Strong's
> dictionaries should be done strictly in the notes, or additional
> material added to the entries, but clearly separate from the
> original. Even including misspellings and typographical errors in
> numerical references. Surely we have enough bytes available in
> our storage to facilitate this.
> I agree that we should focus on creating a pure digital copy of > Strong's original dictionaries. We can make corrections in another > layer on top of Strong's such as in the Lemma Lattice. If we have pure > verbatim Strong's data, then we can create errata document that > provides the comments and corrections to the original data, as you > mention. Strong's dictionary data is a standard, and we need keep that > standard intact. If we want to improve on the standard, that should be > done via separate errata documents or new diff editions that refer > back to the canonical Strong's data. People will disagree which > entries are erroneous, but if we just restrict ourselves to perfecting > the data of the original Strong's dictionary, then we will avoid much > conflict.
> Weston
Again, this is a worthy project on its own. TExT is trying to replace Strong's, not augment it. If an authoritative Strong's is what someone is after, then errata and such, combined with pure Strong's, is the way to go.
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:21 PM, <davidtro...@aol.com > <mailto:davidtro...@aol.com>> wrote:
> Me again,
> One thing I forgot earlier was brought to mind by this post:
> A few possoble goals that come to my mind are:
> 1.
> Create authoritative representation of the data that is
> Creative Commons licensed
> -- Authoritative is a key for me. So much Bible data on the
> internet has been far below the standard of accuracy that
> any print publisher would tolerate. Even some commercial
> Bible study programs are riddled with errors.
> 2.
> Provide Unicode spellings for entries (Darrell Smith has
> been doing great work on this)
> -- Unicode is equally important. Though the conflict
> between 'Code what is written, not what is meant' and 'Code
> characters, not glyphs' leaves room for improvement. > (Characters are what is meant, glyphs are what is written.)
> 3.
> Structure the data in a way that makes it most accessible
> and usable
> -- The idea behind XML has been to have one base format that
> can be transformed into whatever is needed to be accessible
> and usable. We need one solid core format.
> 4.
> Combine Strong's dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek into a
> single unified document
> -- I don't see that combined has any advantage over two
> side-by-side files. As long as both are subject to the same
> strictures.
> 5.
> Revise the definitions and derivations so that they are more
> in line with modern scholarship (this goal gets a little sticky)
> -- Personally, I feel that any tampering with Strong's
> dictionaries should be done strictly in the notes, or
> additional material added to the entries, but clearly
> separate from the original. Even including misspellings and
> typographical errors in numerical references. Surely we
> have enough bytes available in our storage to facilitate this.
> Peace,
> David
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner.
> What will you find? Explore *WhereItsAt.com*
> <http://www.whereitsat.com/?ncid=emlwenew00000001>.
|
