Print

Print


Perhaps we need to have more examples of written sign language, written and then scanned, not typed using SignPuddle.  This would really change people's minds.  I know that Brasilian kids use SW all the time in class.  I was at a grammar school (3rd - 5th grade) in Porto Alegre that was teaching SW to all the kids.  They had posters, they had games, they had a full wall with their examples written.

Charles

 



________________________________
From: Shane Gilchrist <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wed, May 26, 2010 5:42:23 PM
Subject: more on LREC


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
>>>
>>>
>
>