Print

Print


Maria,

I concur with you.

My supervisor and I were talking about that - SW could be a very useful
resource.

Shane

On 26 May 2010 23:36, MARIA AZZOPARDI <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Thank you Charles for your reply.
> My disappointement was acually a little more than 'slight'.
> LREC stands for 'Language Resources Evaluation Conference' - LANGUAGE
> RESOURCES! and not one paper or poster tackled the issue of WRITING sign
> language. The focus is so heavy on the technology side of creating
> machines that can do and read sign language - that the very basic and
> human capacity for WRITING as a language resource is overlooked.
> Maria
>
>
> > HamNoSys from my understanding, is like Stokoe, it is a linear exposition
> > of Sign Languages, not based on their actual appearance in space, which
> > Sign Writing does.  The only way to change minds and hearts is to show
> > TISLR, as we are doing in October, with poster sessions and other
> > methodologies, actual linguistic research using both databases and
> > exposition.
> >
> > We are dealing with inertia here, and a real culture of denial that a
> > writing system can actually work.  It will take your groundbreaking work
> > and the work of users like Fernando Capovilla in Brazil to turn that
> > around, and that with so many piles of literature that it cannot be
> > ignored.
> >
> > Publish, publish, publish, the overwhelming evidence will change the
> > culture.
> >
> > Charles Butler Neto
> > ASL and Libras user.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: MARIA AZZOPARDI <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Sent: Wed, May 26, 2010 4:45:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: Data exchange with SignPuddle Markup Language
> >
> > Dear Steve, Val and all the list,
> > I attended the LREC 2010 and I must say I was slightly disappointed at
> the
> > very low use of SignWriting in Computer Sign Language linguists. There
> > were some researchers that told me they considered SignWriting, but opted
> > for HanNoSys. It would be ideal if SignWriting were used, I thought, but
> I
> > probably can't understand the technicalities, as computers are not my
> > area.
> > Could you explain why the situation is so.
> > Thank you very much,
> > Maria
> >
> >> Hi Bill,
> >>
> >> In SignPuddle Markup Language, there are 3 main parts of information:
> >> terms, text, and source.  SignWriting can be used in each.  The voice
> >> language items are defined the same as sign language items.
> >>
> >> However, by convention, I will be using voice language items differently
> >> than sign language items.
> >>
> >> The voice language items will use UTF-8.  This will be straight
> >> character data, so I'm wrapping the entires as a CDATA block to avoid
> >> parsing.
> >>
> >> The sign language items will use BSW as hexadecimal.  I still need to
> >> decide if terms can be one than one sign.  This will determine if terms
> >> are edited with SignMaker or SignText.  I need to decide the same for
> >> the source: one sign only, or more than one sign.
> >>
> >> For the ultimate in flexibility, I could have the sign language items
> >> use UTF-8; the same as the voice language sections.  I would need to
> >> encode the Binary SignWriting using the UTF-8 I propose with the plane 4
> >> solution.  This way, we could mix sign language with HTML markup and
> >> other spoken languages.  However, this encoding is not approved by the
> >> Unicode consortium so it may be considered bad manners to start using
> >> plane 4 without their approval.
> >>
> >> Either way I go, I will not need to update the SPML DTD definition.  You
> >> can see that I am not limiting the terms, text, or source.
> >> http://www.signpuddle.net/spml.dtd
> >>
> >> Here's an abbreviated definition
> >> <!ELEMENT spml (entry+)>
> >> <!ELEMENT entry (item+)>
> >> <!ELEMENT item (term*,text?,src?)>
> >> <!ELEMENT term (#PCDATA)>
> >> <!ELEMENT text (#PCDATA)>
> >> <!ELEMENT src (#PCDATA)>
> >>
> >> + one or more
> >> * zero or more
> >> ? zero or one
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> -Steve
> >>
> >>
>
>