Historical Events Database - Coordination

[Dirgni]

...
Yeah, there are some years that will have something like 50 or more events where we know the year and the (rough) relative sequence, but no exact dates. I'm not sure if the high month option will work, because the sequence needs to be retained for all events, whether the date is known or not.

For example, let's say these 10 (fake) events represent the events in 45 BC:

45 Jan.
45 ?
45 ?
45 ?
45 Mar.
45 Mar 14
45 ?
45 ?
45 Summer
45 Dec

They need to show up exactly in that order. For example, we may know that the "Mar. 45" event happens before the "Mar 14, 45" event, but not know the exact date. And we know the ones without dates happen in this sequence. The trick Jason used was to put a 'sorting field'. So, I could number each event (1-10) and it would sort the events by those numbers. Or, I could number them: 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, etc. That would give room for adding more events in between, and retain a precise sequence. Is that possible using the month option you're thinking of?

Approaching Infinity maybe you could use the "{crossref:T#1828}", which Data suggested above to get rid of duplicates.
Data, I hope this is not a misuse of the crossref thingie.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Approaching Infinity maybe you could use the "{crossref:T#1828}", which Data suggested above to get rid of duplicates.
Data, I hope this is not a misuse of the crossref thingie.

Not sure how that would work... The problem is having a whole chain of events display (in print) in order, without having to manually sort them after the final output. From what I understand, the crossref function just makes a reference to an already existing text to avoid duplication.

 

[Dirgni]

Approaching Infinity maybe you could use the "{crossref:T#1828}", which Data suggested above to get rid of duplicates.
Data, I hope this is not a misuse of the crossref thingie.

Not sure how that would work... The problem is having a whole chain of events display (in print) in order, without having to manually sort them after the final output. From what I understand, the crossref function just makes a reference to an already existing text to avoid duplication.

Could be a dumb idea. And Data has the last word here, of course. With this you could daisy chain one text after the other with references. Maybe a good place would be in Footnotes? This does not sort the events in the book but connects the events with the footnotes. So it is not exactly what you had in mind, of course.

45 Jan. :Text 1
45 ? : Footnote Text2: This event happened after event of text 1 ({crossref:T#Text1})
45 ? : Footnote Text3: As event of text 1 ({crossref:T#Text1}) is in 45 Jan. and event of text 5 is in 45 Mar ({crossref:T#Text5}) this event must be between but after event of text 2 ({crossref:T#Text2}).
45 Mar. : Text 5

 

[Mikey]

Approaching Infinity maybe you could use the "{crossref:T#1828}", which Data suggested above to get rid of duplicates. Data, I hope this is not a misuse of the crossref thingie.

Approaching Infinity spoke of a different problem, it's unrelated to the cross-references.

The trick Jason used was to put a 'sorting field'. So, I could number each event (1-10) and it would sort the events by those numbers. Or, I could number them: 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, etc. That would give room for adding more events in between, and retain a precise sequence. Is that possible using the month option you're thinking of?

I've re-added the sequence number idea. You can set the sequence number from the Event#Index screen. If you change sequences, you have to reload the page to see the updated result. The sort order of Events is now the following: Year, month (if set), day (if set), sequence (if set). My high-month number idea is thereby scratched ;)

 

[Mikey]

That one didn't show up on its own in the Source Index as of yet, so I couldn't edit it or check it out.

Look again, it must be there (see screenshot).

However, the real problem is that for every quote from the Whiston translation I've also mentioned each time the corresponding Loeb numbers (in the format Chapter, Lines -- like for instance: Ant. 17, 27-35). Should I delete those mentions when I'm revising my original entries, or do you want them saved? For what I know, it seems customary or at least conventional to give both references if possible. Furthermore, when others (like Laura apparently) use those editions it would be systemically more correct when I should do that too. I just would have to compare both text quotes when they become available, to see whether there are any substantial differences between them. Please advise on what to do here.

I would say: just input the Text coordinates (book, chapters, verses, pages) of the actual Source you are quoting from, and delete the coordinates in other sources (in your case, Loeb). You could archive them on your computer just in case.

I'm using Firefox and couldn't, otherwise that would have been the preferred course of action. Nor could I copy/paste from the one source to the other because I can't highlight the number either. I tried again just now but couldn't remove the existing 2010 number using the backspace key, nor could I highlight the number to remove it by cutting it out (via the right click drop down menu). In that field I'm only able to use the counter thingy ATM.

That's very weird. For me it works both in Google Chrome and in Firefox, in Windows as well as in Linux. May I ask you, if it doesn't create too much trouble, to use Google Chrome just for working with the HED? [Edit: Unless you're on a Mac, then Approaching Infinity's trick may work for you]

One last remark: in the Google Books URL field I noticed that Google automatically resets any entry to its local version (in my case Dutch) although I had expressly started with the general international version (books.google.com). That would occur for all other cases outside the USA as well, I think.

That's alright.

When you have inspected both sources once more and approved them, I surmise you could give them definitive status thereafter.

I'm giving you green light for both sources. I still can change small details later if necessary.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I've re-added the sequence number idea. You can set the sequence number from the Event#Index screen. If you change sequences, you have to reload the page to see the updated result. The sort order of Events is now the following: Year, month (if set), day (if set), sequence (if set). My high-month number idea is thereby scratched ;)

 

[shijing]

I relaxed the freezing rules for Sources a bit. Now you also can edit Sources for "Review failed" Events. So, you can try again and it should work now.

I believe it did -- I've returned it to you for review.

That's important info for others. I've turned the "Notes field" for Sources into a big text area.

OK, I updated the "notes field" with that information.

It seems to be okay to continue doing it. But please read the according section in the User Manual ("What to select as an ancient source") for the purpose of the "Derived from" and "Witness" fields.

I think I've got it all in the right place -- I've submitted three more entries for review, so let me know if anything is amiss (I'll be looking for your feedback).

It would be nice to have everything digitized, but maybe this can be done by other helpers who are not interested in actually entering data into the HED. Maybe focus on entering data first, otherwise we spread ourselves too thin and we'll get nowhere.

Agreed -- I'll keep the scanning on the back burner and will be focusing on the data entry for now.

 

[Mikey]

Note to all editors about entering keywords for the Index: Please set keywords as short as possible. Ideally, they are single words. Never input sentences. If you want to put terms consisting of several words, try to break them down with the grouping (>) character, with the morst important word first. E.g. if you want to input "total eclipse", rather input "eclipse>total". See screenshots how this will be rendered in the final output. Note that different capitalization, spelling, or typos will lead to the generation of separate entries, which is bad. Please also consult the automatically generated PDFs regularly (click links at the beginning of this thread) to see how your keywords will actually be added to the Index (you can see it on the very last pages of the PDF). Maybe also study the Index of a few other books that you have at hand, to get a feeling which kind of keywords a good Index contains.

Edit: Regarding capitalizaiton please apply the following rule: Capitalize the first letter of names of places, persons or things. Everything else (even nouns) is in lowercase letters.

 

[Dirgni]

A couple of my Kronk events also contains Yeomans 1991 entries. I made separate texts of them in events until 600. I cannot check them as I do not have the book. In the source there is no pdf, too. Is it possible to assign the entries / texts to someone, who could check against the book? Is it possible to get a pdf of Yeomans 1991 uploaded in its source? Do you have an advice?

There is no hurry to solve this as I have got enough other events I can do first. :)

 

[Mikey]

Is it possible to assign the entries / texts to someone, who could check against the book? Is it possible to get a pdf of Yeomans 1991 uploaded in its source? Do you have an advice?

There is no hurry to solve this as I have got enough other events I can do first. :)

We can do these later, maybe do your other entries first. I'll see if I can find the Yeomans PDF.

Meanwhile, I've added in citation support for anthologies as requested by Approaching Infinity.

On the Source#Edit screen you now can set the source type field to "anthology". If that's the case, you can leave the "authors" field in the Source empty. Instead you'll get two more input fields per-Text after it has been saved at least once: "Chapter name in anthology" and "Author in anthology". See attached screenshot as to how the citation will be rendered. Hope that's suitable.

 

[Palinurus]

That one didn't show up on its own in the Source Index as of yet, so I couldn't edit it or check it out.

Look again, it must be there (see screenshot).

You're right. I found it now and edited in all extra info I could find. Please review it and then consider it as a valuable second source for the Whiston translation. See below why (page numbers).

However, the real problem is that for every quote from the Whiston translation I've also mentioned each time the corresponding Loeb numbers (in the format Chapter, Lines -- like for instance: Ant. 17, 27-35). Should I delete those mentions when I'm revising my original entries, or do you want them saved? For what I know, it seems customary or at least conventional to give both references if possible. Furthermore, when others (like Laura apparently) use those editions it would be systemically more correct when I should do that too. I just would have to compare both text quotes when they become available, to see whether there are any substantial differences between them. Please advise on what to do here.

I would say: just input the Text coordinates (book, chapters, verses, pages) of the actual Source you are quoting from, and delete the coordinates in other sources (in your case, Loeb). You could archive them on your computer just in case.

I have problems with all this.

First off, the Kindle edition doesn't have page numbers but uses location numbers instead, like for instance: 55% Location 22950 of 41802 to mark the beginning (first page) of The Wars of the Jews. However, the PDF-file of our Christian friends (source S#488) does have page numbers. What do you want me to use?

Secondly, the Whiston translation uses Book, Chapter and then Section or Paragraph numbers but not verses or lines for further specification. Can I use the §-sign for that?

Thirdly, I'm not sure I could archive the Loeb-numbers of every quote on my own computer without archiving the whole entry as well in its current draft state. Because after re-editing those numbers will be gone, of course. Does the HED allow for copying my entries from there to my own computer? How to go about that when possible: the whole lot in one go or piecemeal one by one? Haven't tried this out up until now either.

I'm using Firefox and couldn't, otherwise that would have been the preferred course of action. Nor could I copy/paste from the one source to the other because I can't highlight the number either. I tried again just now but couldn't remove the existing 2010 number using the backspace key, nor could I highlight the number to remove it by cutting it out (via the right click drop down menu). In that field I'm only able to use the counter thingy ATM.

That's very weird. For me it works both in Google Chrome and in Firefox, in Windows as well as in Linux. May I ask you, if it doesn't create too much trouble, to use Google Chrome just for working with the HED? [Edit: Unless you're on a Mac, then Approaching Infinity's trick may work for you].

Yes, it's kind of weird indeed. The only explanation I can think of would be that you have administrator privileges others cannot use. Alternatively, it might be a no-script feature. I've added historicalevents.thebigrede.net/ to the allowed sites list. Maybe that helps. Otherwise, I'll plod along as before.

Now I'll try to make an entry of mine in draft mode ready for reviewing as a try-out ASAP.

 

[Mikey]

First off, the Kindle edition doesn't have page numbers but uses location numbers instead, like for instance: 55% Location 22950 of 41802 to mark the beginning (first page) of The Wars of the Jews. However, the PDF-file of our Christian friends (source S#488) does have page numbers. What do you want me to use?

If you have the searchable PDF, it should take only a few seconds to locate all citation numbers of an excerpt that you have in the Kindle edition. Then, you should prefer the PDF source and numbers, rather than the Kindle one.

Secondly, the Whiston translation uses Book, Chapter and then Section or Paragraph numbers but not verses or lines for further specification. Can I use the §-sign for that?

For this particular Source, I would input the section/paragraph numbers as verse numbers. I believe whoever will read our citations, will figure out what the numbers mean depending on each Source.

Thirdly, I'm not sure I could archive the Loeb-numbers of every quote on my own computer without archiving the whole entry as well in its current draft state. Because after re-editing those numbers will be gone, of course. Does the HED allow for copying my entries from there to my own computer? How to go about that when possible: the whole lot in one go or piecemeal one by one? Haven't tried this out up until now either.

I've added another field for each Text: "Internal notes". You could archive your Loeb numbers there if you want. This field will not be published.

I hope all of that works for you...

 

[Oxajil]

The works of Flavius Josephus are mentioned on the Loebolus list but they are not complete.

Missing are book 15-20 from Antiquities of the Jews (no PDF's available)

The annual subscription to the Loeb Classical Online Library http://www.loebclassics.com/ is EUR 150,-. It seems to have all the books. If we need access, we could think about getting it. For nonprofit institutions, the first 60 days are free.

Approaching Infinity can sign us up and pay from NC and we can make the access available to those working on the project.

In case this helps, I appear to have access to loebclassics.com. It might be that I don't have full access, as it always differs per website, but I did a check on a couple of books, and I seem to have full access to them (example, Frontinus, Josephus, Bede). It's not possible, unfortunately, to download the books as pdf files from the website.

So, if anyone currently needs access to the Loeb Classics website, you can send me a PM and I can give you my account details. :)

 

[Palinurus]

First off, the Kindle edition doesn't have page numbers but uses location numbers instead, like for instance: 55% Location 22950 of 41802 to mark the beginning (first page) of The Wars of the Jews. However, the PDF-file of our Christian friends (source S#488) does have page numbers. What do you want me to use?

If you have the searchable PDF, it should take only a few seconds to locate all citation numbers of an excerpt that you have in the Kindle edition. Then, you should prefer the PDF source and numbers, rather than the Kindle one.

Yes, I do have that searcheable PDF-file and will use this one instead of the Kindle as soon as you've finalized it as a valuable source.

Secondly, the Whiston translation uses Book, Chapter and then Section or Paragraph numbers but not verses or lines for further specification. Can I use the §-sign for that?

For this particular Source, I would input the section/paragraph numbers as verse numbers. I believe whoever will read our citations, will figure out what the numbers mean depending on each Source.

Okay, I will act accordingly.

Thirdly, I'm not sure I could archive the Loeb-numbers of every quote on my own computer without archiving the whole entry as well in its current draft state. Because after re-editing those numbers will be gone, of course. Does the HED allow for copying my entries from there to my own computer? How to go about that when possible: the whole lot in one go or piecemeal one by one? Haven't tried this out up until now either.

I've added another field for each Text: "Internal notes". You could archive your Loeb numbers there if you want. This field will not be published.

I hope all of that works for you...

Thanks, Data. I will exploit that possibility to save the Loeb numbers for eventual future use.

The works of Flavius Josephus are mentioned on the Loebolus list but they are not complete.

Missing are book 15-20 from Antiquities of the Jews (no PDF's available)

The annual subscription to the Loeb Classical Online Library http://www.loebclassics.com/ is EUR 150,-. It seems to have all the books. If we need access, we could think about getting it. For nonprofit institutions, the first 60 days are free.

Approaching Infinity can sign us up and pay from NC and we can make the access available to those working on the project.

In case this helps, I appear to have access to loebclassics.com. It might be that I don't have full access, as it always differs per website, but I did a check on a couple of books, and I seem to have full access to them (example, Frontinus, Josephus, Bede). It's not possible, unfortunately, to download the books as pdf files from the website.

So, if anyone currently needs access to the Loeb Classics website, you can send me a PM and I can give you my account details. :)

Thanks Oxajil for chiming in and offering assistance.

In this specific situation however, your offer would be of limited utility since it's not so much about access per se to those volumes, as well as about incorporating them in PDF-format into the database of the HED where they then would be available for consultation by others than me personally.

As you stated, your access cannot provide for that. It's a pity, nevertheless.

 

[Mikey]

Yes, I do have that searcheable PDF-file and will use this one instead of the Kindle as soon as you've finalized it as a valuable source.

S#488 looks good!