Newsgroups: comp.text
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!lsuc!sq!lee
From: lee@sq.sq.com (Liam R. E. Quin)
Subject: Re: Public Domain Dictionary
Message-ID: <1991May31.025805.24100@sq.sq.com>
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
References: <1991May29.235751.1362@imagen.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 91 02:58:05 GMT
Lines: 55

ram@lynx.Berkeley.EDU (m.v.s. ramanath) writes:
>There seems to be a serious need for a public domain dictionary.

I've been thinking about exactly this issue for some time... and had even
got an article written (but not typed) along the same lines in the last
few days!

>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. Or
>50 who can do 10 per day.

Of course, quality control and checks for regional variations are very
important.  Dictionary definitions are extraordinarily hard to write well.
Although perhaps we could do a plausible job, I doubt that Chambers or
Oxford or Webster need worry... :-)


I had half-planned the following:
* for each person writing definitions, there would be at least two people
  reading definitions with the ability to comment on them

* a writer is sent n randomly-chosen words (for example, 30 words taken from
  random usenet articles and other sources, subject to other checking)
  The software would keep a list of which words were sent to whom, of course;
  that's easy

* when the writer returns some or all of the words, the software sends the
  same number as were returned, crosses the received words off the list,
  and re-sends the un-returned ones.

* a writer can work at any rate, and can "refuse" to do some or all of th
  words.

* the words received are put on the list to be sent out to readers to check
  for typos, local variations (e.g. momentarily means different things to
  different people)..

The same sort of thing for words received from reader-people.

I'm even prepared to work on such software (as well as type words...)

Much of the challenge is to automate enough that no one person has to see
500 words a day, as that would be (to say the least) a full-time job.


For fun, by the way, I have some dictionary entries already, but they are
mostly from seventeenth century dictionaries :-)


Liam

-- 
Liam Quin, lee@sq.com, SoftQuad, Toronto, +1 416 963 8337
the barefoot programmer