BDAG SGML Availability

[Seth Washeck]

In searching for an available Greek lexicon for download, I cam across this Wikipedia article for BDAG.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauer_lexicon

The last paragraph mentions a conversion to SGML in conjunction with DTS. Does anyone know if this is available to the public, and at what cost?

[Daniel Owens]

Ohhh, that would be wonderful, but the 3rd edition was published in 2000. I am doubtful that the publisher would release such files to the public.

Daniel

On 06/20/2012 07:52 AM, Seth Washeck wrote:

In searching for an available Greek lexicon for download, I cam across this Wikipedia article for BDAG.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauer_lexicon

The last paragraph mentions a conversion to SGML in conjunction with DTS. Does anyone know if this is available to the public, and at what cost?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Scriptures" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/openscriptures/-/_YfB5uI4FCAJ.
To post to this group, send email to openscr...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openscripture...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openscriptures?hl=en.

[Daniel Owens]

I should add that I created a Github repository ( https://github.com/dowens76/Abbott-Smith) for some idle work I am doing to digitize the Abbott-Smith lexicon, which was a more concise successor to Thayer and the predecessor to the English translation of Bauer's lexicon. I welcome contributors. I am aware that the file does not validate—I am working from OCR'd text, so much cleanup needs to be done, as well as TEI markup added.

Daniel

[John Dyer]

Seth,

Those SGML files that were produced at DTS were part of a software project called "CD Word" which was later bought by Logos an integrated into their platform. So the files aren't available anywhere for public usage.

The best bet for a free lexicon is Strong's data here: https://github.com/openscriptures/strongs

JD

--
John Dyer - http://j.hn/

[John Dyer]

Daniel,

That would be incredible! I wish there was a good crowdsourcing tool for this kind of work...

JD

[Daniel Owens]

Yes, I agree. I have been puzzling over that one for awhile.

I have experimented with using WeSay ( http://wesay.palaso.org/), which is perfect for collaborative lexicon development for non-techies, even making version control a no-brainer function. But it is not really appropriate for this kind of project, and it is written for Windows, with occasional Linux builds.

Really an online tool would be ideal. I lack the coding skills to put something like that together, but I imagine someone who knows how to integrate version control with editing XML would be able to come up with something fairly quickly.

Daniel

[Peter von Kaehne]

On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 08:24 -0700, Daniel Owens wrote:
>
> Really an online tool would be ideal. I lack the coding skills to put
> something like that together, but I imagine someone who knows how to
> integrate version control with editing XML would be able to come up
> with something fairly quickly.

It is not by necessity important to do XML editing. XML editing by hand
is often unintuitive and difficult for the kind of people you would want
to engage.

I would think that a slash demarcated encoding similar to USFM is
probably faster understood.

The conversion can then be done by software.

If this is a way forward, I am sure that bibledit could be tweaked into
the right direction. It offers a web and a fat client, working on
Windows, Linux and Macs.

Another option would be to go for a Wiki. There is a USFM mediawiki
extension which could like get tweaked for that.

Again, the export would create the xml.

Peter

[Daniel Owens]

You are probably right, and I have thought about using SFM markers, but there are desireable features that SFM may not work well for. And there is a steep learning curve for SFM as well, thought not as steep as XML, as you note. A wiki might be better, but still you sacrifice precision for ease of use.

Daniel