Historical Events Database - Coordination

[Gaby]

FWIW, event #312 is ready for review.

 

[Palinurus]

Data, I've prepared Event #1710 for reviewing.

The whole entry is problematical for several reasons.

First off, it combines heterogeneous elements which belong together as its title shows: Portents, prodigies and prophecies about destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD) and also because Josephus put them together in one single paragraph.

Secondly, the dating is problematical and there has been ample discussion about it previously which didn't result into a rounded conclusion; so I left the date unchanged for the time being. I've listed the relevant contributions to that discussion for your convenience:

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,33985.msg487417.html#msg487417
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,33985.msg487451.html#msg487451
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,33985.msg487570.html#msg487570
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,33985.msg487726.html#msg487726
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,33985.msg487762.html#msg487762
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,33985.msg487817.html#msg487817
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,33985.msg488141.html#msg488141
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,33985.msg488150.html#msg488150
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,33985.msg489799.html#msg489799
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,33985.msg489847.html#msg489847
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,33985.msg489950.html#msg489950
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,33985.msg490814.html#msg490814
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,33985.msg490819.html#msg490819

And there it was left hanging...

Hope you can take this up directly with Laura to reach a final decision about this conundrum.

 

[Mikey]

Data, I've prepared Event #1710 for reviewing.

The whole entry is problematical for several reasons.

First off, it combines heterogeneous elements which belong together as its title shows: Portents, prodigies and prophecies about destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD) and also because Josephus put them together in one single paragraph.

Secondly, the dating is problematical and there has been ample discussion about it previously which didn't result into a rounded conclusion; so I left the date unchanged for the time being. I've listed the relevant contributions to that discussion for your convenience:

Thanks Palinurus, and in order to answer your questions I have to write a longer, general response, relevant for all editors:

As the project has been progressing last year, there was some going back and forth between decisions about a) how to date an undated event and b) how to deal with 'mixed' events and Event/Text duplicates etc. I think we all were just beginning to experience the great complexity of the project we've undertaken, and struggling to find solutions to it. Complicating further this already complex matter, we also had to deal with the fact that we're several people, all not yet synchronized with to the 'workflow', and on top of that, using a customly written software / database application that had its own design flaws.

This situation naturally led to more questions than answers, which you brought up Palinurus, which is good. I've been wrestling with these problems myself, and I think with the current HED I've managed to implement a system which allows, in principle, to reach all aims that have been set for this project. With this post I'm going to attempt to clear up some confusion by re-addressing and clarifying stuff.

To recapitulate, the two aims are, mentioned a few posts earlier by Laura (I'm detailing and rephrasing them):

1. Creation of a chronology of environmental and social events based on the survey of ancient literature. The generated chronology should hold up to academic standards and should be indisputable (in the sense that it is indisputable that our collected texts ARE present in ancient literature).
2. 'Atomization' (splitting up) of 'mixed' reports, where each 'atom' clearly belongs to one, and only one, category and subcategory]. Doing this allows to:
a) measure the 'weight' or 'event density' of a time period (e.g. one year) by counting the atomized events in that time period,
b) see possible patterns of events by filtering by category, subcategory, author, keywords, etc.
Both a) and b) are already implemented in the interactive graph of the public interface.

Now, these aims are ideal, and there are number of problems standing in the way in some cases. These problems are already well known by us editors and are ...

The dating problem

Some events do not have a date attached and can only be dated by cross-referencing other literature, by interpolation, and by inferring -- a method that some scholars undertake. A number of you have been attempting to do this, which has produced some 'editorial commentary'. The problems with dating and writing commentary are:

1. It takes a lot of time, energy and knowledge to come to any conclusion in the first place,
2. It takes a lot of time, energy and knowledge to do a 'peer review method' on such commentary (all of which I don't have, but I CAN verify citations),
3. It's possible to come to wrong conclusions and we would add another layer of noise to the raw data and make it disputable.

Thus, for this current stage in the project, we give up any attempt of dating or correcting given dates. However, this does not mean we should delete or ignore undated events. Enter undated events anyway and submit them for review. The more data is in the database, the more valuable and useful it is! If a date cannot be explicitly determined from the source, set the special year 9999. Having all such events in one 'virtual' year will allow us later to return to them and work with them. I will make a special listing for such events in the public interface.

Always enter the given date even when you know it's wrong or shifted in the source. This will make our data indisputable. Events which have two different given dates should not be merged, even if you think they are one and the same. We will save this work for a later stage of the project.

Now, some of you, especially Zadig, already have made a lot of efforts writing extensive commentary and attempted to find plausible dates by pulling in other source's information. As mentioned, don't spend time on this any more. But at the same time, for already written commentary, there is no need to delete it: simply separate your commentary from the actual citation by copy-pasting it into a new text field, and submit the entire event for review anyway. During review, I simply will ignore this commentary and click a checkbox to exclude these commentary from publication. But the information still will be around in the database to help us along in the future. Again, the more structured data is in the database, the more valuable and useful it is.

The splitting (or 'atomizing') problem

(Finally I'm able to come back to your question, Palinurus ;) ) I want to illustrate this problem with Event #1710 which Palinurus just submitted for review. The quotation is from Josephus, and in one paragraph Josephus mentions 7 different classes of relevant (to us) events. It is NOT ENOUGH to simply create ONE Event from this quotation, there must be SEVEN Events with SEVEN DIFFERENT categories. For this particular quotation from Josephus, the 'atomized' events are:

1. Celestial / Comet
2. Environment / Atmospheric Prodigies {the bright light}
3. Environment / Animal Prodigies {the heifer giving birth to a lamb}
4. Environment / Strange Sounds {what the priests heard}
5. Geology / Earthquake {what the priests felt}
6. Celestial / Other {chariots and troops amongst clouds}
7. Other / Other {heavy gate opens by itself}

Categories are always open to discussion and sometimes it's not entirely clear (like the "heavy gate"). But categories can be changed easily later, so don't obsess over it. The important thing is to 'atomize', this gives it 'weight'!

See the 7 different Events made from Josephus' quotation with the SAME Text here: http://hed.quantumfuturegroup.org/events/list?commit=Filter%21&filter1_attr=events.occurrence_year&filter1_value=9999&filter2_attr=&filter2_value=&filter3_attr=&filter3_value=&utf8=%E2%9C%93

Note that in this listing, the date says "undated". This is OKAY and DESIRED for this stage of the project.

The Text duplication problem

Now, for Josephus' just mentioned quotation with 7 different aspects, one could create 7 different Events (as one should), and copy-paste the same quotation again and again. The latter copy-pasting is not good. This is duplication, which is a lot of work and not good for the database structure. In the newest HED it is possible to re-use one particular Text across many Events. There is a new input field at the very bottom of the page: "Add existing Text ID". For Josephus' just mentioned quotation, I've added the SAME Text #6206 to 7 different Events. This is quite simple and quick to do, but if you need more info about how it works, just ask here. Doing this will allow the software to NOT reproduce the same Text if it has already been produced.

Summary

You will notice that for the current stage in this project there is a strong empasis on raw and structured data, as opposed to analysis, correction and commentary. This should make our job MUCH easier and faster. This current stage in this project will continue until ideally ALL Events which are now in the 'Draft' state, are reviewed and published in the public web interface of the HED.

Editors who 'run out' of draft Events, can either continue adding new data, or assist others.

I hope this clarified some things, if not, just ask, as always! :)

 

[Palinurus]

Wow Data, thanks for your elaborate reply and ingenious solutions.

I didn't expect my post to give rise to a thorough policy overhaul or a refined clarification of the existing one, but it makes perfect sense in this particular case and for similar situations by extension.

A few questions are left hanging on this point: What shall I do with the info and sources gathered on the several conflicting dates for the comet(s) and the chariots in the sky? When and how will this dating problem be tackled and solved? Will I have a part in that when it happens, and how would I know about that? Would this come up in this thread or on the other one (history in terms of content)?

For now, I'm left with one further remaining question: what happened with the prophecies? They seem to have fallen onto the wayside.

It was Portents, prodigies and prophecies about the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD), remember?

You seem to have skipped those without giving an explanation as to why exactly and I would like to know your arguments and reasons for that.

These prophecies could easily be incorporated into a separate entry when deemed relevant enough for the project as a whole, and in that case I gladly would make a new event for them.

 

[Mikey]

Wow Data, thanks for your elaborate reply and ingenious solutions.

I'm glad it was clear and that it is appreciated!

I didn't expect my post to give rise to a thorough policy overhaul or a refined clarification of the existing one, but it makes perfect sense in this particular case and for similar situations by extension.

Don't worry, it's just a complex problem and it's easy to forget, so I'll just keep repeating and expanding on stuff, which will help even me remember.

A few questions are left hanging on this point: What shall I do with the info and sources gathered on the several conflicting dates for the comet(s) and the chariots in the sky?

I've copied your info into a separate Text of the same Event #1710, but it will not be included in any publication for now because I've got a checkbox for this. The info you've written is now considered purely 'internal' notes, visible only for editors, for the future.

When and how will this dating problem be tackled and solved? Will I have a part in that when it happens, and how would I know about that? Would this come up in this thread or on the other one (history in terms of content)?

I don't know yet when we will tackle the dating problem. It is of no concern for now. One thing is sure: It will only be after we've gotten all Events out of 'Draft'. And yes, you can be involved in it if you like, you will know when it happens!

For now, I'm left with one further remaining question: what happened with the prophecies? They seem to have fallen onto the wayside.

Yes, it was a faulty decision of mine. I was going too fast and thought that we didn't have a category/subcategory for it, and just deleted it. But we do have a category for it: Society / Human Prodigies. I'll add it back in asap!

 

[Palinurus]

Yes, it was a faulty decision of mine. I was going too fast and thought that we didn't have a category/subcategory for it, and just deleted it. But we do have a category for it: Society / Human Prodigies. I'll add it back in asap!

Thanks Data, I appreciate that. I'll check your entry later to see whether everything came through as it should be.

I take it that I'm now allowed to start editing the next event in preparation for you reviewing it thereafter.

 

[Palinurus]

Data, I've checked your entry about the prophecies E#4552 and didn't find any flaws.

Event #1762 is now put up for reviewing.

 

[Mikey]

Zadig, short question about Text #6258 in Event #2242 from Aelius Aristides which goes like this ...

And later, when Albus {snip} for no harm would befall.

... did you take this text from Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: A Multidisciplinary Study available at https://books.google.fr/books?id=FzXSBgAAQBAJ&pg=PT527&lpg=PT527#v=onepage&q&f=false ?

 

[Zadig]

Zadig, short question about Text #6258 in Event #2242 from Aelius Aristides which goes like this ...

Same translation because Ambraseys also uses Behr's translation of Aelius Aristides.

 

[Palinurus]

Data, I've put up event #2413 for reviewing.

According to the lay-out of the event preview something has gone wrong with the footnotes. Two of the footnotes appear within the text body instead of under the line where they belong. Also the order in which they should show up is Topsy-turvy.

The Whiston note (#02310) should stand on top as it belongs to the PDF-manuscript cited from.

The Uzziah note (#02815) should come second with all the four paragraphs now within the text body under its general heading.

The Jeroboam II note (#03038) with seven paragraphs now also within the text body should be the last one, ending with a quote.

I've tried everything I could come up with to get this in the right order, but failed. Maybe you can fix it as it should read ?

There will be a separate event made which shall contain all sources and references with the available archaeological evidence for this earthquake, some of which are already mentioned or hinted at in the notes of event # 2413 but without proper elaboration for the time being.

Please advise as to how I would make a proper connection between those two events in terms of database technology. I will need to upload a new PDF-file for the main evidence source too when I'll get to editing this next event (#2412).

 

[Dirgni]

I will need to upload a new PDF-file for the main evidence source too when I'll get to editing this next event (#2412).

Do you want to upload a second pdf to an existing source Palinurus? If yes, you can just go to appropriate existing source and drag-and-drop it into the field with "Drop files here".

I did this today with a longer pdf scan of "Chronicle of Fredegar", filled in the description fields for it and pressed "Safe!" button. It worked even if there was an error message when saving. :)

I hope this helps a bit.

 

[Palinurus]

Do you want to upload a second pdf to an existing source Palinurus? If yes, you can just go to appropriate existing source and drag-and-drop it into the field with "Drop files here".

Thanks Dirgni, but I think this doesn't apply here. I have to rework an existing entry into a brand new one for which no source exists in the database, currently. Therefore I'll have to create a new source just to cover this one entry. It's a controversial event (Amos earthquake) which was discussed in the history thread, starting here. Other existing sources make no mention of it, I believe.

 

[Mikey]

Please advise as to how I would make a proper connection between those two events in terms of database technology. I will need to upload a new PDF-file for the main evidence source too when I'll get to editing this next event (#2412).

I did the following:

- I put the 2 Wikipedia footnotes into separate Texts, and attached the generic 'Wikipedia' source to it, and pasted the links into the URL1 field of the Texts. This way, the public interface will put proper links to Wikipedia, see here: http://hed.quantumfuturegroup.org/events/2413-nutkifk
- I changed the Category to Archeology -> Earthquake evidence (rather than Geology->Earthquake)
- I changed the date to BC 760 +- 25 years (since Wikipedia quotes several archaeologists as giving 760)
- I published it for web

If you prepare another Event containing additional archaeological evidence, just submit it for Review; I will merge them accordingly.

Thanks!

 

[Palinurus]

Data, I followed your link to inspect the end-result and I'm impressed. It now looks exactly like I intended it to be. Good job, well done.

I'll bring the next item (Event #2412) in-line with your alterations to synchronize both.

 

[Mikey]

Data, I followed your link to inspect the end-result and I'm impressed. It now looks exactly like I intended it to be. Good job, well done.

I'll bring the next item (Event #2412) in-line with your alterations to synchronize both.

Excellent! Glad you're happy with the result!