On Jul 25, 2006, at 8:56 AM, Alberto Micol wrote:
> we need more examples, and probably
> more comprehensive UCD descriptions (not just only the couple
> of words currently listed for each ucd); not too much, but just enough
> to not have anyone repeating the same errors again and again,
> and to avoid confusion (e.g. meta.code while one really means meta.id,
> meta.id while one really means meta.code, ;-) etc.)
Well, you might start there. I still have no clue what the distinction is supposed to be between meta.code and meta.id.
As a cautionary tale, I highly recommend "The Meaning of Everything" by Simon Winchester. This is the story of the Oxford English Dictionary - the prototypical project that was supposed to take five years, but took fifty - or was it 75 years? - to complete. (Only to start all over again.) UCDs are ultimately derived from the experience of the OED - both are structured word lists, compiled by reference to a body of literature.
Rob Received on 2006-07-25Z18:21:17