![]() We also found it critical to establish whether the database had a pre-defined, rather than user-defined, structure, as this could affect how easy it might be to enter data and add missing features at a later time. We have evaluated relational, XML, flat, and free-form databases for this review, and found that all three were able to handle linguistic data. We have considered as well those criteria used by other database reviews such as "Open Source Database Comparison" (Anonymous 2004) and "Questions to Help Evaluate Linguistic Tools" (BIFoCAL 2003b). This section includes criteria that we found to be important for database software whatever its purpose, and includes database and network issues, programmability, and the ability to import and export data. We have also considered the ease with which the software can be downloaded*, how easy it is to use, and whether or not support for the software is available. ![]() We distinguished between three types of evaluative criteria: General Information, Technical Information, and the Ability to Handle Linguistic Data.īy "General Information" we mean information that a user may want to take into consideration when selecting software, such as what developer produced the software, which platforms the software runs on, what other software is needed, the price, and the licensing options available. We began our project by selecting criteria that we felt were essential for databasing linguistic information 1. The following section describes how we established the criteria we have used on this project. ![]() Our goal is simply to evaluate the software according to the criteria we have chosen and allow the user to decide which criteria are most essential to their needs. ![]() We would also like to mention that the goal of our project is not to select the best software available, since any such recommendation is dependent upon the specific needs of individual linguists and projects. We would indeed appreciate any feedback regarding the criteria we have used and other software that should be reviewed. If we do not mention a piece of software, it is not to discount it: we consider this an ongoing project. The tools selected here are those that we have encountered through our work with the E-MELD project as well as those that have been recommended to us by various field linguists. The goal of this project is to evaluate different tools linguists use for database management. In Sections 3 and 4 we present both linguistic and non-linguistic software that have been evaluated according to our criteria, and in Section 5 we discuss the software that we had not been able to fully evaluate at this time due to a variety of reasons. In Section 2 we will discuss the project goals and our methodology for evaluating this software. This project aims to develop an ongoing review that evaluates linguistic and non-linguistic DBMS according to best practice criteria and with a linguistic purpose in mind. Despite interest in best practice initiatives, however, we know of no comprehensive review of best practice DBMS software used for language documentation. Therefore, many linguists use the formats that DBMS* and their interfaces (henceforth simply DBMS) produce as storage for their data. The E-MELD () initiative seeks to diminish the risk of language data loss and increase data accessibility by teaching linguists specializing in language description how to document their language in best practice format.Į-MELD recommends that linguists create a text file in XML markup as their archival copy, but archival formats are designed for preservation, not for modification. Standards in digital language documentation are important in another way: it is crucial that native communities be able to access material, regardless of the platform or software they are using. With the new urgency of initiatives that seek to document endangered languages, the way in which data is organized and archived is of great importance: many formats become unreadable as technology advances and developers cease to support older versions. All linguists specializing in language description must confront the problem of how to digitally organize the data they have collected.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |