grand scheme

[Romi]

quick question to get myself oriented:

how does this project fit into the landscape of other extant projects?

e.g. SWORD, unbound bible, semantic bible

[evstevemd]

A lot of discussions about scripture (texts) manipulated by those
programs.
i.e "open scriptures" :)

[Romi]

"manipulated" in what way?

[Weston Ruter]

We are a group drawn together around a goal to see scriptural data made freely and openly available, and then to build new applications on top of this data that would previously have been impossible. See Linked Data. We often seek out public domain data and reformat it to be more useful to this end, or we work on creating the data from scratch if it is not already openly available. 

We communicate a lot with the Crosswire (SWORD) guys; they primarily develop end-user applications for scripture. As far as I am aware, Unbound Bible is no longer actively maintained. And Semanic Bible is the personal site for Sean Boisen who contributes heavily to scriptural Linked Data, especially for his employer (Logos).

Open Scriptures doesn't seek to duplicate efforts or take away from any other initiatives. We seek to be a catalyst and a community for like-minded people to collaborate.

Hope this is helpful, and anyone please correct me or provide further information as to how this group relates to other initiatives.  

On Thursday, April 19, 2012, Romi wrote:

"manipulated" in what way?

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:03:23 mmunicare PM UTC-5, evstevemd wrote:

A lot of discussions about scripture (texts) manipulated by those
programs.
i.e "open scriptures" :)

On Apr 18, 7:26 pm, Romi <romi.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> quick question to get myself oriented:
>
> how does this project fit into the landscape of other extant projects?
> e.g. SWORD, unbound bible, semantic bible

--
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/-/JxS6ycasvkAJ.
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.

--

Weston Ruter
http://weston.ruter.net/
@westonruter - LinkedIn - Facebook - Google+

[Romi]

thank you for this explanation

are there any projects working on a morpheme-level composition of the hebrew and greek scriptures?
(sorry, I don't know the lingo yet)

where are your data repositories?

i've been working on transcribing an interlinear hebrew-english OT (NIV), because I couldn't find such a dataset online (perhaps due to my weak googlefu). I figure an interlinear is a useful starting point to creating a true morphemic text. my own motivation for the morpheme-based approach is my frustration with the amount of information lost in phrase-based translations. i have a personal view that the Bible as narrative (cf DNA as polynucleotide) is a view that limits greatly the amount of insight that one can gain into its message. what I am trying to confirm, essentially, is that this group is heading the expedition that will reveal the structural grandeur of divine word.

in the mean-time, are there any hands wiling to help transcribe the interlinear NIV?

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 7:02:56 PM UTC-5, Weston Ruter wrote:

We are a group drawn together around a goal to see scriptural data made freely and openly available, and then to build new applications on top of this data that would previously have been impossible. See Linked Data. We often seek out public domain data and reformat it to be more useful to this end, or we work on creating the data from scratch if it is not already openly available. 

We communicate a lot with the Crosswire (SWORD) guys; they primarily develop end-user applications for scripture. As far as I am aware, Unbound Bible is no longer actively maintained. And Semanic Bible is the personal site for Sean Boisen who contributes heavily to scriptural Linked Data, especially for his employer (Logos).

Open Scriptures doesn't seek to duplicate efforts or take away from any other initiatives. We seek to be a catalyst and a community for like-minded people to collaborate.

Hope this is helpful, and anyone please correct me or provide further information as to how this group relates to other initiatives.  

On Thursday, April 19, 2012, Romi wrote:

"manipulated" in what way?

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:03:23 mmunicare PM UTC-5, evstevemd wrote:

A lot of discussions about scripture (texts) manipulated by those
programs.
i.e "open scriptures" :)

On Apr 18, 7:26 pm, Romi <romi.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> quick question to get myself oriented:
>
> how does this project fit into the landscape of other extant projects?
> e.g. SWORD, unbound bible, semantic bible

--
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/-/JxS6ycasvkAJ.

To post to this group, send email to openscriptures@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openscriptures+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openscriptures?hl=en.

--

Weston Ruter
http://weston.ruter.net/
@westonruter - LinkedIn - Facebook - Google+

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 7:02:56 PM UTC-5, Weston Ruter wrote:

We are a group drawn together around a goal to see scriptural data made freely and openly available, and then to build new applications on top of this data that would previously have been impossible. See Linked Data. We often seek out public domain data and reformat it to be more useful to this end, or we work on creating the data from scratch if it is not already openly available. 

We communicate a lot with the Crosswire (SWORD) guys; they primarily develop end-user applications for scripture. As far as I am aware, Unbound Bible is no longer actively maintained. And Semanic Bible is the personal site for Sean Boisen who contributes heavily to scriptural Linked Data, especially for his employer (Logos).

Open Scriptures doesn't seek to duplicate efforts or take away from any other initiatives. We seek to be a catalyst and a community for like-minded people to collaborate.

Hope this is helpful, and anyone please correct me or provide further information as to how this group relates to other initiatives.  

On Thursday, April 19, 2012, Romi wrote:

"manipulated" in what way?

On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:03:23 mmunicare PM UTC-5, evstevemd wrote:

A lot of discussions about scripture (texts) manipulated by those
programs.
i.e "open scriptures" :)

On Apr 18, 7:26 pm, Romi <romi.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> quick question to get myself oriented:
>
> how does this project fit into the landscape of other extant projects?
> e.g. SWORD, unbound bible, semantic bible

--
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/-/JxS6ycasvkAJ.

To post to this group, send email to openscriptures@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openscriptures+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openscriptures?hl=en.

[Efraim Feinstein]

Hi,

On 04/19/2012 09:39 AM, Romi wrote:

(sorry, I don't know the lingo yet)

are there any projects working on a morpheme-level composition of the hebrew and greek scriptures?

I don't think anyone's marked up to that level, but you certainly could within Open Siddur's XML WLC. Our default phrase breakup is based on Masoretic cantillation, but I could see, for example, using a tei:m tag < http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-m.html> within words. Warning: this is a lot of work!

i've been working on transcribing an interlinear hebrew-english OT (NIV), because I couldn't find such a dataset

A word of warning: you will likely create something legally undistributable if you use the NIV. It is under a copyright scheme with a very restrictive license.

-- 
---
Efraim Feinstein
Lead Developer
Open Siddur Project
http://opensiddur.net
http://wiki.jewishliturgy.org

[Romi]

Hi Efraim, great to hear from you, and thank you for the warnings

I'm trying to figure out how to direct my efforts. I understand that adding morphology to the text would be a great undertaking, but I don't imagine it being done alone, right? It's a small effort compared to the benefit of easing the mass apprehension and comprehension of Biblical Hebrew. For the record, I'm Hebrew-illiterate.

Question: what of ambiguity? My understanding is that ambiguity is used intentionally/poetically. If there are instances where the same wordform has multiple possible morphological decompositions, is it possible to provide all of the alternatives?

[Efraim Feinstein]

Hi,

On 04/19/2012 12:58 PM, Romi wrote:
> Hi Efraim, great to hear from you, and thank you for the warnings
>
> I'm trying to figure out how to direct my efforts. I understand that
> adding morphology to the text would be a great undertaking, but I
> don't imagine it being done alone, right? It's a small effort compared
> to the benefit of easing the mass apprehension and comprehension of
> Biblical Hebrew. For the record, I'm Hebrew-illiterate.

Breaking up by morpheme may not be the most useful way to do it, and
would be made even more difficult in that you'd have to define a
morpheme, and morphemes in Hebrew might sometimes divide up inside a
letter-vowel combination.

Grammatical tagging of words might be quite a bit more useful and might
interest a lot more people. I know some on Open Scriptures are
interested in grammatically tagging the WLC and I think there's been
some progress on it too.

>
> Question: what of ambiguity? My understanding is that ambiguity is
> used intentionally/poetically. If there are instances where the same
> wordform has multiple possible morphological decompositions, is it
> possible to provide all of the alternatives?
>

Depends on your XML/database schema. In our case, yes.
<tei:w xml:id="wxxx">
<tei:choice xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
<j:option xml:id="option1">
<tei:m>...</tei:m>
<tei:m>...</tei:m>
</j:option>
<j:option xml:id="option2">
<tei:m>...</tei:m>
<tei:m>...</tei:m>
</j:option>
</tei:choice>
</tei:w>

PS For full disclosure: Open Siddur is not an Open Scriptures project,
but we do collaborate when it's mutually beneficial.

[Romi]

Noted,

Perhaps you are right: tagging the Hebrew with morphemes may not be the best idea. However, I'm considering the possibility of composing an all-morpheme translation (a grail?). ie not tagging the hebrew, but creating a legible morphemic syntax that is language-independent, and which could *generate* the Hebrew from an appropriate set of grammatical rules and a lexicon, but could also translate the text with the same fluency into any language.

Perhaps I'm confused.

Let's say there's a dual, possessive, feminine noun. Instead of assigning an element for each morpheme, my intent is to assign metadata to the word: ie <w lexeme="1240" number="2" gender="female" case="possessive"> instead of <m type="gender">etc. In this sense, morphemic data are included, though the word and not the morpheme is atomic. Is this what you mean by grammatical tagging?

[Efraim Feinstein]

Hi,

On 04/19/2012 01:35 PM, Romi wrote:
> Perhaps you are right: tagging the Hebrew with morphemes may not be
> the best idea. However, I'm considering the possibility of composing
> an all-morpheme translation (a grail?). ie not tagging the hebrew, but
> creating a legible morphemic syntax that is language-independent, and
> which could *generate* the Hebrew from an appropriate set of
> grammatical rules and a lexicon, but could also translate the text
> with the same fluency into any language.

On the former, it sounds doable in theory, although I'm not sure of the
utility in practice.

The latter is considerably harder, as (1) there is no "correct" 1:1
translation -- translation is always an act of interpretation and (2)
the syntactic structures of languages differ considerably, and what
makes sense in Biblical Hebrew probably does not make sense or sounds
ridiculous in English. To do any better might end up reinventing the
wheel of natural language processing. :-)

> the word and not the morpheme is atomic. Is this what you mean by
> grammatical tagging?

What you described is what I would call grammatical tagging. There are
people here working on that (I think David Troidl mentioned some related
projects in the past on this list?).