It's true!
I am asking around on different mailing lists to gain some insight into the archiving habits of linguists who use lexical databases. I am specifically interested in databases created by tools like FLEx, ToolBox, Lexus, TshwaneLex, etc.
Background Story Continue reading
I was looking up some resources for making a violin in my area. Violinorum says there are three, one in salem and two in portland. I want to make three violins.
https://www.theluthierslibrary.com/
https://www.theluthierslibrary.com/luthiers_library/mainMenu.do
https://www.kerrviolins.com/baroque-and-classical-instruments.html
http://www.sandysviolin.com/handmade-violins-violas.html
https://www.herrmannviolins.com/violin-making
And then of course there is the bow making too.
couple of articles:
https://www.yamaha.com/en/musical_instrument_guide/violin/selection/
https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/using-wood-for-violin-makers.html
https://www.benningviolins.com/types-of-wood-for-making-a-violin.html
This is interesting software for a self hosted archive.
https://github.com/tweetback/tweetback
The issues is that OLAC and these other uses of Dublin Core don't agree in the semantics of spatial coverage.
https://archive-intranet.ardc.edu.au/display/DOC/Spatial+coverage#:~:text=Spatial%20coverage%20refers%20to%20a,the%20focus%20of%20an%20activity.
Critical question here, is one where we ask: "what do English think geography is for language?"
Thinking deeply about:
Check out this map of Online Indigenous Language Courses 🗺️ https://t.co/8LUQxTELDb
Map created by: Courtney Tennell, Melvin Calls Him Jr., and Kari A. B. Chew— ELAR archive (@ELARarchive) March 19, 2023
From time to time, I read about the advancement of pythons in the Florida Everglades. Pythons are an introduced species without a predator in this context. This is deemed to be bad for biodiversity in the region. It is also predicted that the population will continue to expand north. One thing I haven’t read about is the use of traps based on pheromone attraction. It seems that such traps could work for snakes of a specific gender.
Various approaches to metadata quality assessment divide the assessment criteria into sections. For example accuracy, consistency, and completeness. However, one should ask if a quantitative approach to metadata quality assessment is better than a qualitative approach. Some may point out that the two are not mutually exclusive, and therefore not in direct competition with each other. However, I wonder if this is true. For example, if one has limited reading time does one benefit more from reading the percentage of errors relative to another error type or does one learn more by reading about the assumed noncompliance or disharmony across metadata records?
The second point in suggesting that a qualitative description of metadata quality might be better that a quantitative description is related to root causes — presumably the purposes of the investigation in the first place.
It seems to me that a quantitative approach makes the data the discussion and ignores the methods by which the data got into the observed format. For example, what were the human factors under which the metadata was produced? What was the workflow? What was the target metadata scheme at the time the records were created? What was the Managment implemented checking process, i.e. what were they checking for, or their metrics for success?
A qualitative analysis can show where the current process meets the Managment considerations. Essentially this is problem-solution fit analysis, where metadata quality is a trailing performance indicator for business processes. However, it gets interesting here because the prevaithouggt is that metadata is also the way that a customers are serviced through the organization. That is, it is like a loss-leader product in that it is a product to get a customer to the main product.
Purely quantitative analysis simply announces that issues exist within a relative order. It doesn’t seek to explain the short comings using a contextual analysis.
Some years ago, scholars were debating the definition of collection. In an archival sense, and the more traditional sense, a collection refers to a direct or accumulating set of resources. In a library sense a collection may wax and wane depending on the Curation of the collection. So what is a digital collection? Especially in an aggregator of metadata?
To this question I have given some thought. The DCMIType “collection” is ambiguous on this point. Aggregations seem not to be the same as “collection” in that they are continuously updating, and may be different for different viewers! However, essentially this is the same definition that is used in libraries.
After about a year and a half of thinking about this traveling point how to do it I think I have a solution. Aggregations such as those through OAI or RSS, are not collections at all. Rather, aggregations are a view through a dynamic access point. RDA and IFLA – LRM are two models that use the concept of access points. Aggregations, in this sense of access point, our temporary applications of an access point to a resource. In RDA and IFLA – LRM these access points are hard coded on the record. This need not be the case all the time in an information retrieval system. Information retrial system can have there own coded access points independent of the data they are operation on. In this way the information retrieval system might mitigate the possible limits in the information structure of the information being retrieved. It validates the autonomy of the information retrieval system from the information.
This sort of solution preserves the definition of collection bringing sanity to the concept of collection.
And the boat is about to launch! All a board!
E
I would like to add some outputs to XLingPaper. Three very interesting and community-broadening outputs to add would be JATS, Docbook scoped to the Balisage Tag Set (for use by balisage paper authors), and the DHQ markup language.
Red Arrows Propose new XML outputs
As a kid I remember getting many fillings. Also remember distinct visits to the dentist where my brother screamed. It seemed cavities were a part of life.
When I was in the 5th grade I lived on a dairy farm. More importantly our back yard was a courtyard which was a covered liquid drain pool for faeces and urine. We had five kids in the family at that time but our rate of acquiring ear infections, streptococcus, bronchitis, and sinus infections was, as I recall, high. It might have been the environment, but it was also true that we passed the illnesses from child to child.
One day that same brother who screamed years earlier at the dentist, piped up and said: we keep getting sick because we share toothpaste. Even if we have separate toothbrushes, sharing toothpaste is a common point of contact. After that our parents bought us each our own toothpaste and we did see some lower rates of illness.
Separate toothpaste sources is more than a flavor choice in my family. We don’t drink after each other and we do try not to use the same toothpaste source to reduce the number of vectors available for spreading illnesses across our family.
When in was in Highschool one of my classmates’s dad was a pediatric dentist. He told me that one way to think about carries was as a communicable disease. Since it was caused by a bacteria, it could spread. This has also helped the thinking in our house.
This year we are celebrating 10 child-years with no dental carries! We have a 7 year old and a 3 year old. I brush their teeth 3-4 times a week, with other supplemental brushing on their own. I use the oral-b brush in the photo because it has reduced my gum inflammation due to over brushing with manual brushes.
These factors, along with a high yogurt, no-high fructose corn syrup, no-candy, no-soda diet has so-far pushed us into a more healthy oral hygiene situation for my kids than for me when I was a kid.
This morning the Oregon state Supreme Court battled oral arguments in Eugene, at the UO law school. I was invited to attend by a friend. So I took up the opportunity. Some quite interesting cases. Two cases actually. One pressing the idea of the legitimacy of a warrant regarding some future activity, the other Regarding the culpability and ensuing damages of a doctor accused of negligence in a situation where the patient was misdiagnosed and died.
Facts and circumstances determine all cases. However the case where the personal representative of the deceased was arguing essentially for malpractice, was interesting.
The basis of the case was common law. Several cases were referred to as president. Oregon State Supreme Court acknowledged something called a “loss of chance” a number of years ago. In the closing arguments, several implications came to mind. The first being that there seems to be an assumption among the lawyers that the opposite of death is life. This doesn’t seem to always be true. While both conditions are mutually exclusive. Life is related to vibrance and how well one lives is certainly on a gradient scale. So is the opposite of death life? There seem to be quite a bit of concern around this in the oral arguments.
Another question is the duty of care, in an abortion situation, to whom is the duty of care? Is it to the mother, the baby, or the father? Who has the right to be the deceased’s PR? One of the critical arguments in the case was the assumption that the duty of care assumes life. Certainly this is not always true? But is it relevant? A service result ends in death in an abortion. It also ends in death with doctor assisted suicide, which is legal in Oregon.