SWA to BWI

Just a reminder that this year's annual TEI Members' Meeting (which
is mostly open to the public) will be held at Johns Hopkins
University in Baltimore MD, USA on Fri 22 Oct and Sat 23 Oct.

For those making arrangements for travel from within the USA, you may
find that Southwest Airlines has a better rate than any of the major
carriers, and sometimes travel agents do not investigate SWA, as they
are not included in the major travel booking systems.

I gleaned the following from their website.

SWA flies nonstop from the following airports to Baltimore Washinton
International (BWI).

  Albany (ALB)                          Manchester (MHT)
  Albuquerque (ABQ)                     Midland/Odessa (MAF)
  Amarillo (AMA)                        Nashville (BNA)
  Austin (AUS)                          New Orleans (MSY)
  Baltimore/Washington (BWI)            Norfolk International Airport (ORF)
  Birmingham (BHM)                      Oakland (OAK)
  Boise (BOI)                           Oklahoma City (OKC)
  Buffalo (BUF)                         Omaha (OMA)
  Burbank (BUR)                         Ontario (ONT)
  Chicago (Midway) (MDW)                Orange County (SNA)
  Cleveland (CLE)                       Orlando (MCO)
  Columbus (CMH)                        Philadelphia (PHL)
  Corpus Christi (CRP)                  Phoenix (PHX)
  Dallas (Love Field) (DAL)             Portland (PDX)
  Detroit Metro (DTW)                   Providence (PVD)
  El Paso (ELP)                         Raleigh-Durham (RDU)

difference between tei.general and tei.mixed

Re: difference between tei.general and tei.mixed

> Is there any definition for tei.general and tei.mixed and any resource
> concerning the material they describe?
> What are the differences between them?

These are just auxiliary sets of parameter entity definitions, not
substantive tagsets in their own right, hence you won't find the sort of
definition I suspect you have in mind. Use of one or the other of them
doesn't give you access to any elements or attributes other than those
defined elsewhere: it merely allows you to draw on more than one base
tagset, while specifying how and where ingedients from those bases can be
mingled in your documents.

So they offer two different ways of handling situations in which you need to
incorporate elements and attributes from more than one base tagset into your
DTD (and if you don't need to do that because an existing base meets all
your needs, you can forget about them). Their use is explained in P4 3.2.2
and 3.4 , as is the distinction between them.

If you use the mixed base plus the base sets of your choice, you can use
chunk and inter-level elements from any of your chosen base sets in any div
in any part of your text. This may well be more permissive than you need or
want. Using the general base allows you to have a number of sections within
a text, each of which draws on one (only) of your chosen multiple component
bases for its repertoire of permitted elements. This gives you more control
over what appears where.

But P5 promises more flexible and less confusing ways of dealing with such
needs.

Michael Beddow

expanding on glosses

Section 6.3.4 of TEI P4 introduces three elements which don't seem to
have much in common, except that they are often typographically
distinguished in running text. They are <term>, <gloss>, and <mentioned>.

Leaving aside the last of these, which I think really ought to be
discussed along with its oft-confused friend <soCalled>, I would like to
propose (for P5) a more rational way of grouping together <term> and
<gloss> and a small number of other similar phrase level elements. My
proposal is to establish a new club for them and a few select others,
tentatively called the tei.glossy class. The core module would populate
this class with <term>, <gloss> and the following other elements:

<desc> -- currently defined in both the new "gaiji" module which
replaces the old WSD, and the new tagdoc module which replaces the old TSD
<equiv> and <altIdent>  -- also defined in the new tagdoc module
<trans> -- defined in the dictionary module

Making these elements all available in the core would
(a) make life a lot easier when trying to build schemas -- you wouldn't
have to load the dictionary module just to record that a phrase is a
translation rather than original
(b) reduce the clutter of near synonyms in the Guidelines -- you
wouldn't be tempted to make up your own "translated" element

Putting them into a class would
(a) make clearer the conceptual structure of the Guidelines
(b) enable you to add your own near synonym if you really want to!

As this is a proposal for P5, I'm posting this as a source-forge feature
request as well as to TEI-L. Feel free to send your comments to
whichever forum you feel more comfortable with...

Lou

Re: expanding on glosses

> Making these elements all available in the core would
> (a) make life a lot easier when trying to build schemas -- you wouldn't
> have to load the dictionary module just to record that a phrase is a
> translation rather than original

Though I think this proposal is a good idea in general, I don't follow why
anyone would need to include dictionaries for this in the present scheme of
things: term and gloss are in teicore2  So was the idea in P5 to move term
and gloss out of the slimmed-down core and into dictionaries?  I wouldn't
think that was sensible in the first place.

But I'm ignorant about the current state of the developments aimed at
making P5 seriously usable for term-banks (as distinct from the rather
limited possibilities of the P4 Ch 12 "Print dictionaries")  Is the
(re?)location of "term" (e.g. its putative migration away from the core)
somehow tied in with these developments?  In which case there might be
larger implications here  that the terminologists could comment on.

Michael Beddow

Re: expanding on glosses

This makes me pretty happy. What I don't like is the name "glossy", which
looks too clever for its own good.  "glossing" would be better.

sebastian

Re: expanding on glosses

Michael Beddow wrote:

>>Making these elements all available in the core would
>>(a) make life a lot easier when trying to build schemas -- you wouldn't
>>have to load the dictionary module just to record that a phrase is a
>>translation rather than original
>
>
> Though I think this proposal is a good idea in general, I don't follow why
> anyone would need to include dictionaries for this in the present scheme of
> things: term and gloss are in teicore2  So was the idea in P5 to move term
> and gloss out of the slimmed-down core and into dictionaries?  I wouldn't
> think that was sensible in the first place.

No, no. The idea is to make the <trans> element (which is currently
available only in dictionaries) alongside <gloss>. You will say "what's
the diff?" (perhaps): I can only say that terminologists assure me that
there's all the diff in the world between a gloss, which is intended to
explain a technical term, and a piece of text which is a non-authorial
interjection in some other language.  So you might have

<p>A <term>widget</term> is <gloss>a mechanical device for farbling
grunt-futtocks (<trans xml:lang="FRA">futtoques
soupirants</trans>)</gloss></p>

in running prose, quite apart from possibly using the same elements in a
dictionary entry

>
> But I'm ignorant about the current state of the developments aimed at
> making P5 seriously usable for term-banks (as distinct from the rather
> limited possibilities of the P4 Ch 12 "Print dictionaries")  Is the
> (re?)location of "term" (e.g. its putative migration away from the core)
> somehow tied in with these developments?  In which case there might be
> larger implications here  that the terminologists could comment on.

No no, again, <term> is staying where it is. I will leave it to Laurent
to comment on what's planned for TEI P5 wrt Dictionaries and Terminology.

>
> Michael Beddow
>

Re: expanding on glosses

Michael Beddow wrote:

>"owl  -- isang uri ng ibon". That means "a kind of bird"
>
my kind of succinct dictionary, tells you all you need to know.
is there a code saying whether it is eatable?

Sebastian

Re: expanding on glosses

[MB]
> > Though I think this proposal is a good idea in general, I don't follow
> > why anyone would need to include dictionaries for this in the present
> > scheme of things: term and gloss are in teicore2  So was the idea
> > in P5 to move term and gloss out of the slimmed-down core and
> > into dictionaries?  I wouldn't think that was sensible in the first
place.
>
[LB]
> No, no. The idea is to make the <trans> element (which is currently
> available only in dictionaries) alongside <gloss>. You will say "what's
> the diff?" (perhaps): I can only say that terminologists assure me that
> there's all the diff in the world between a gloss, which is intended to
> explain a technical term, and a piece of text which is a non-authorial
> interjection in some other language.
>

Ah right, thanks, panic over. Having <trans> in the core would certainly do
no harm, but I wouldn't like this thread to lead people who've so far stayed
with the core and used <gloss> to mark up explanatory translations of
<term>s to feel guilty of tag abuse.

The terminologists' strict understanding of "gloss" is all of a piece with
their strict understanding of 'term'. They have a clear need for, and every
right to, such stringency in their own discipline, but I'm not convinced
their usage need constrain everyone else's, especially not in Broad Church
TEI.

For instance, in discursive scholarly discussions of lexis, <term> is often
(and I'd say also quite properly) used to tag "the particular lexical item
on which discussion is focussed at this point" and an associated <gloss>
accommodates what may be either a paraphrase or a synonym which can be in
the same language as the <term> or a different one.  In the latter case, I
see no pressing need to tag it as a "translation" instead, even if it
happens to be one.

I think also that long-established and serviceable lexicographical
categories need to be  defended against expansionist tendencies stemming
from stricter lexical database usage.  For example, the distinction in
bilingual historical lexicography between "definition", "translation", and
"gloss", where the first specifies meaning through reference to an
ultimately axiomatic system, the second offers an appropriate item from the
corresponding semantic field in the target language, and the third often
expresses the lexicographer's desperation at being unable to provide either
of the first two items.

I was recently sent what purported to be an English-Tagalog dictionary which
contained things like
"owl  -- isang uri ng ibon". That means "a kind of bird": it is certainly
not a translation, is highly inadequate as a definition, and so has to my
mind to be classed as a (pretty ineffectual) gloss. So if I thought such
stuff worth encoding in the first place, I wouldn't have any qualms about
using <gloss> here.

Michael Beddow

Re: expanding on glosses

Lou,

Would <trans> be syntactic sugar for such mark up as the following:

<w lang="fr" type="trans">maux</w>

or

<s lang="urdu" type="trans"> .... </s>

Or is the proposal to somehow connect <trans>, <gloss> and <term> outside
the terminological or dictionnary entry setting? If so it might be a good
idea to consider granting the newly freed <trans> element a "resp"
attribute which it does not currently have under P4 as a member of the
classes dictionaries, dictionaryParts, dictionaryTopLevel. Such a move
would certainly demarcate a newly denested <trans> element from the
examples noted above where "resp" is not available without modifying the
DTD.

--
Francois Lachance, Scholar-at-large
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~lachance

A calendar is like a map. And just as maps have insets, calendars in the
21st century might have 'moments' expressed in flat local time fanning out
into "great circles" expressed in earth revolution time.