> Colin, it sounds like you've already got most of the Wiki articles we
> need - ie Bible people.
> It would be good to have Bible places as well. Other subjects aren't
> so important.
> The most important bit is the text, not the pictures, and esp the
> Hebrew & Greek which are missing from the older dictionaries.
> It is sufficient to be tied up with the same headwords as the other
> articles (if possible - not if it means manual work).
> Does the Hebrew & Greek come off the web as Unicode? Prob it would be
> best to save them as RTF or DOC
> (RTF is theoretically more universal, but actually there are
> different versions of RTF, so DOC is prob better, paradoxically).
>
> Wrt pictures, we'll probably leave these off the distributed version,
> because they take up disproportionate space,
> and link to something like the Biblos picture search, which gathers
> pictures from several sources.
David,
Yes, Bible places is in there too (as well as a lot of stuff we don't
want - went for an inclusivist approach on the first pass).
I've uploaded what I have to the dropbox (A-G - rest of the alphabet
downloading at one page per 5 seconds to be nice to their servers) so
you can have a look. The format is unicode text which is what it arrived
in, but could be converted to something else easily, as could discarding
the excess Wiki formatting.
Linking with headwords can obviously be done if the headwords are
identically the same, but gets harder for different spellings (soundex
may work but will give false positives). This goes for the various
different PD dictionaries as well as Wikipedia of course.
Colin
No comments:
Post a Comment