ram@lynx.Berkeley.EDU (m.v.s. ramanath) (05/31/91)
There seems to be a serious need for a public domain dictionary. Since dictionary publishers are unlikely to make their materials available for free, I propose that we net folks create our own. I assume that since English words and their meanings are not copyrightable (though the specific wording of a meaning as published in an extant dictionary may be). So as long as we come up with our own definitions and don't lift stuff verbatim from published dictionaries we should be ok. This won't of course be a scholarly and definitive effort but should be useful in an everyday context. Here is the proposed plan of action: I estimate that a dictionary needs to have about 180,000 words to be reasonably useful. That means that if we get about 500 (actually 494) definitions typed in per day, we'll be done in a less than year. That means we need about 100 volunteers who each undertake to come up with the definitions (in their own unique words) of 5 words per day. So how about it folks ? Volunteers ? If there is enough interest in this idea (either from potential users of the dictionary or from potential volunteers) I'll flesh out the idea some more. If there is a fatal flaw in the idea, I'd like to hear about it. Ram ====================================================================== M.V.S. Ramanath |ram@imagen.com or QMS/Imagen |imagen!ram@sun.com or 2650 San Tomas Expressway |imagen!ram@decwrl.dec.com Santa Clara, California, U.S.A. 95052 | Phone: (408) 986-9400 (ext. 431) | ====================================================================== Disclaimer: I speak for myself only and not for my employer ======================================================================
marcel@cs.caltech.edu (Marcel van der Goot) (06/01/91)
ram@lynx.Berkeley.EDU (m.v.s. ramanath) wrote: > There seems to be a serious need for a public domain dictionary. Strange, but I have never heard of this need before, nor had it myself... It seems to me that there are quite enough good dictionaries around, in all forms and versions, including machine-readable formats. Dictionaries (at least those for English) are also not excessively expensive, so what's the point? > So as long as we come up with our own definitions and don't lift > stuff verbatim from published dictionaries That is a much harder task than you think. Except for very simple words, it is quite hard to come up with a meaningful definition that is acceptable to a majority of people. (Simple words may also be difficult.) > That means we need about 100 volunteers who each undertake to come up with > the definitions (in their own unique words) of 5 words per day. Ha! Sure, you pick 100 people and ask each of them to list 5 words per day (don't even bother about the definitions). How many different words would you have after a year? About 20_000 maybe? (Unless of course everyone takes a part of a published dictionary and starts copying words.) > So how about it folks ? Volunteers ? Maybe you should try some alt groups... Marcel van der Goot .---------------------------------------------------------------- | Blauw de viooltjes, marcel@vlsi.cs.caltech.edu | Rood zijn de rozen; | Een rijm kan gezet | Met plaksel en dozen. |
jeffrey@cs.chalmers.se (Alan Jeffrey) (06/02/91)
In article <1991May31.163736.27167@imagen.com> m.v.s. ramananth writes: >There seems to be a serious need for a public domain dictionary. > >Since dictionary publishers are unlikely to make their materials >available for free, I propose that we net folks create our own. Unfortunately, there's a reason why dictionaries cost money and take a looong time to produce, and that is that they're an absolute pain to edit. Some of the most important features of a dictionary are consistency of notation and pronunciation, accurate cross-referencing, decisions about slang, foreign words, UK English vs US English vs Canadian English vs Australian English vs NZ English vs..., inclusion or exclusion of technical words, hyphenation, and so on and so on and so on and... Given the amount of highly skilled effort needed to produce a decent dictionary, the net hasn't got a hope. What would be nice is a standard dictionary (Chambers maybe) in a decent on-line version. The OED is around, but that's in a proprietary CD-ROM format. And a good hyphenation dictionary would be nice too (who knows, we might even be able to build a UK hyphenation table (oblig. TeX reference)). Cheers, Alan. -- Alan Jeffrey Tel: +46 31 72 10 98 jeffrey@cs.chalmers.se Department of Computer Sciences, Chalmers University, Gothenburg, Sweden