Historical Events Database - Coordination
- Thread starter Mikey
- Start date
Zadius Sky
The Living Force
Data said:Done! It's E#4314 and now has 13 Texts. Some Texts are duplicates, but you can delete them easily!
I've been working on this yesterday and today - it's not easy!
I have been extracting a number of sources from Text #5726 by zadig into separate texts with proper sources, but the rest (11 sources) - I cannot find the originals.
Also, in Text #5727 (by zadig) doesn't have a source, but he just commented (to my comment to you, Data) that he wrote it himself. Is that allowed?
Zadius Sky said:Data said:Done! It's E#4314 and now has 13 Texts. Some Texts are duplicates, but you can delete them easily!
I've been working on this yesterday and today - it's not easy!
I have been extracting a number of sources from Text #5726 by zadig into separate texts with proper sources, but the rest (11 sources) - I cannot find the originals.
Also, in Text #5727 (by zadig) doesn't have a source, but he just commented (to my comment to you, Data) that he wrote it himself. Is that allowed?
The HED does indeed allow for editorial text, and it's encouraged if it's done well. If someone wishes to add editorial text to an Event, they can do so by creating their own Source. E.g. Zadig has S#501. Then, simply create a new Text, type ahead, and attach your own Source to it.
It seems that for E#4314 (Earthquake of 365) Zadig has found many quotations. So, it would make sense that he gets the Event into Review. Zadig, do you want to take E#4314 and get it ready for Review? I can assign it to you. We all already know the 'drill':
1. Create individual Sources for every single Text, and also for each inline citation of editorial text.
2. Find PDFs and upload them, or if not available, put a link to a web resource, or if this is not available also, put a note into the Notes field of the Source stating your name and saying: "I have a local hardcopy of this book" or "I have accessed this book in library X". I will fail entries which refer to things that cannot be found anywhere. Because obviously information has to come from somewhere.
3. If you quote inline in editorial text, use the newly introduced citation syntax: {S#1234,p=111-222} (This is not documented yet, but it's only relevant for those who write editorial text. I will add an explanation to the User Manual soon.)
Zadius Sky
The Living Force
Data said:
I think that makes sense. I already fixed up my "texts" that I have done so far. Maybe he can finish it up. This earthquake will be in the first volume.
Data said:
I've looked at the statistics page which shows event states per editor, and thought about the editorial commentaries again, which Zadig started to write. The fundamental idea of the HED is to collect raw data points with full quotations and citations for statistical evaluation and additional research based on that, and we've got a lot of work ahead of us just getting these raw data points reviewed. Therefore @Zadig: Could you focus on that first instead on writing commentaries? The statistics page shows that you have over 2100 entries, and we have to get them out of Draft.
Attachments
Zadius Sky
The Living Force
Data said:
I just sent the five for reviewing - the rest I would have to work on. There were new texts in my entries that I never saw before, so it'll take me some time to work on them.
Yesterday I skimmed over the entire Historical Events Database - History thread a second time to find answers to questions that again came to me while reviewing entries. These questions were basically: In which way exactly should 'mixed' and 'composite' events (e.g. a one-sentence report about a comet + earthquake + tsunami which all could stand in a direct causal relationship) be entered, so that ...
1) ... we give proper 'weight' to happenings by splitting them up into multiple entries, each with a concise and singular taxonomy, while avoiding Text duplication which would reduce database orthogonality and is bad for PDF publishing purposes.
2) ... track both given dates (which might be wrong) as well as corrected dates side by side (corrections especially for solar eclipses and periodic comets)
The weakness of history editors, copyists and outright falsifiers obviously are significant environmental events, and we need to exploit that weakness by tracking such events with greater precision.
With the right 'weight' we will be able to run more accurate graphical statistics (and see 'spikes' which already show themselves), and compare that data for example to tree ring analysis, a research topic that Laura suggested last year.
By tracking the difference between given and actual dates (with solar eclipses as the main anchor points) we may find out intentional or unintentional time shifts for each ancient author, and move their timelines accordingly, also a suggestion from Laura.
So, I'm discovering once more that we're dealing with a complex problem, and its technical solution needs another rework to match it. I have to shut down the HED once more for 1 or 2 weeks to make internal database and data-relational changes. But don't worry, the user interface and our current mode of working will not change much, if at all. It's mostly internal changes.
Also, with the coming rework we may open the database up for public read-only viewing, searching, and statistics generation (especially graphs) for other researchers, which is an exciting idea IMO.
So, once more: stay tuned!
And thanks to all editors for all the hard work, and don't hesitate bringing suggestions etc. into this thread! :)
1) ... we give proper 'weight' to happenings by splitting them up into multiple entries, each with a concise and singular taxonomy, while avoiding Text duplication which would reduce database orthogonality and is bad for PDF publishing purposes.
2) ... track both given dates (which might be wrong) as well as corrected dates side by side (corrections especially for solar eclipses and periodic comets)
The weakness of history editors, copyists and outright falsifiers obviously are significant environmental events, and we need to exploit that weakness by tracking such events with greater precision.
With the right 'weight' we will be able to run more accurate graphical statistics (and see 'spikes' which already show themselves), and compare that data for example to tree ring analysis, a research topic that Laura suggested last year.
By tracking the difference between given and actual dates (with solar eclipses as the main anchor points) we may find out intentional or unintentional time shifts for each ancient author, and move their timelines accordingly, also a suggestion from Laura.
So, I'm discovering once more that we're dealing with a complex problem, and its technical solution needs another rework to match it. I have to shut down the HED once more for 1 or 2 weeks to make internal database and data-relational changes. But don't worry, the user interface and our current mode of working will not change much, if at all. It's mostly internal changes.
Also, with the coming rework we may open the database up for public read-only viewing, searching, and statistics generation (especially graphs) for other researchers, which is an exciting idea IMO.
So, once more: stay tuned!
And thanks to all editors for all the hard work, and don't hesitate bringing suggestions etc. into this thread! :)
Indeed, we had a discussion at breakfast about the database and how to make it most useful to ourselves and other researchers.
We want to:
1) be able to use it to run graphs and see spikes where events are intense and complex.
2) publish a useful text for other researchers not to mention our own uses.
If you have a look at the cometography book, you will see more or less what we want. It is just page after page after page of events. Of course, he is putting all the various reports of single events together into a single entry and citing the various sources along with the scientific/astronomical views of later analysts. But doing commentary like that is highly technical and that, in the end, is not exactly how we wish to treat our texts.
So, as noted, in addition to publishing a chronological listing of events, we want to:
1) discern the weight of events
2) see the patterns of events
3) as reported by the experiencers and their chroniclers.
That's IT.
Now, what sort of commentary is important?
Well, the only thing I can think of that is needed here is as follows: That is, IF there is a modern day confirmation of an event that is recorded in an ancient text, such as we have been entering as separate events, it should go as a footnote to the ancient text of the event in question.
BUT, if there is an archaeological finding by modern researchers that we do NOT find in our ancient texts, they should be entered as main events with a footnote that this event is not found in any of the EXTANT ancient sources.
THE TIME PROBLEM.
Now, we have done some "adjusting of dates" in the main entries based on figuring stuff out and/or having an archaeological confirmation that allows us to do this. However, I see now that this must be reversed if we are going to be able to figure out what those people back then were actually doing. There are three elements here:
1) The date of the event according to the ancient source. (May be right or wrong.)
2) The actual date of the event. (May or may not be confirmed by later scientific work.)
3) The date of the author/text recording the event.
Obviously, number three will be taken care of in the source citation fields. I think we've angsted over whether to date the event according to the text even if we know it is wrong... or to follow modern, scientific confirmation.
I think we can handle it this way: IF, and ONLY IF, there is a good, scientific confirmation of a specific event so that it can be re-dated in correction of the ancient text, we can do so. BUT, it must be footnoted that this has been done!!! There probably won't be many entries of this kind.
However, if it is just an idea we have (such as myself), that it belongs to a different year because of one theory or another, I think the date given by the ancient text should prevail WITH a footnote, perhaps. Obviously, if we need to, we can pull up different parts of the database to check out these theories, but for general research purposes, the date assigned by the ancient author, in the absence of any really good evidence to the contrary, should stand.
Now, there is a particular issue here: most dates given to events in ancient texts have been assigned by later researchers based on their own reconciliation of calendars in more modern times, since the Renaissance. So clearly, these dates might be subject to question. However, most books that supply these dates do so according to a consensus. In the notes to my PtD entries, I included that information as often as it was present in the notes of the original translator and later critics.
The issue of language:
As I have said REPEATEDLY, this database is for research and to help researchers, and therefore, since the modern scientific language, according to the majority of scientific work, is English, ALL references and texts MUST be in English. If they are not already in English and you are translating originally, then you are providing a great service to the scientific community.
In the past dozen years or so, the tendency of scholars to include quotes in Latin or Greek or German, etc, has been much criticized and the cutting edge workers now operate almost exclusively in English. Only a few die-hards still quote in Latin and Greek without translation. For our purposes, we just dispense with the Latin and Greek and if the reader knows them, or other languages, and they have the source citation, they can get the volume and check the translation themselves.
Now, I repeated this thing about standardization of language a number of times, but it seems that certain persons were not listening. If you cannot do what is asked of you for this project, just say so and resign because what you are doing is NOT helping me, and the beginning purpose of this database was to help ME to get the data for the next books! If you can't give me help, just go away!
We want to:
1) be able to use it to run graphs and see spikes where events are intense and complex.
2) publish a useful text for other researchers not to mention our own uses.
If you have a look at the cometography book, you will see more or less what we want. It is just page after page after page of events. Of course, he is putting all the various reports of single events together into a single entry and citing the various sources along with the scientific/astronomical views of later analysts. But doing commentary like that is highly technical and that, in the end, is not exactly how we wish to treat our texts.
So, as noted, in addition to publishing a chronological listing of events, we want to:
1) discern the weight of events
2) see the patterns of events
3) as reported by the experiencers and their chroniclers.
That's IT.
Now, what sort of commentary is important?
Well, the only thing I can think of that is needed here is as follows: That is, IF there is a modern day confirmation of an event that is recorded in an ancient text, such as we have been entering as separate events, it should go as a footnote to the ancient text of the event in question.
BUT, if there is an archaeological finding by modern researchers that we do NOT find in our ancient texts, they should be entered as main events with a footnote that this event is not found in any of the EXTANT ancient sources.
THE TIME PROBLEM.
Now, we have done some "adjusting of dates" in the main entries based on figuring stuff out and/or having an archaeological confirmation that allows us to do this. However, I see now that this must be reversed if we are going to be able to figure out what those people back then were actually doing. There are three elements here:
1) The date of the event according to the ancient source. (May be right or wrong.)
2) The actual date of the event. (May or may not be confirmed by later scientific work.)
3) The date of the author/text recording the event.
Obviously, number three will be taken care of in the source citation fields. I think we've angsted over whether to date the event according to the text even if we know it is wrong... or to follow modern, scientific confirmation.
I think we can handle it this way: IF, and ONLY IF, there is a good, scientific confirmation of a specific event so that it can be re-dated in correction of the ancient text, we can do so. BUT, it must be footnoted that this has been done!!! There probably won't be many entries of this kind.
However, if it is just an idea we have (such as myself), that it belongs to a different year because of one theory or another, I think the date given by the ancient text should prevail WITH a footnote, perhaps. Obviously, if we need to, we can pull up different parts of the database to check out these theories, but for general research purposes, the date assigned by the ancient author, in the absence of any really good evidence to the contrary, should stand.
Now, there is a particular issue here: most dates given to events in ancient texts have been assigned by later researchers based on their own reconciliation of calendars in more modern times, since the Renaissance. So clearly, these dates might be subject to question. However, most books that supply these dates do so according to a consensus. In the notes to my PtD entries, I included that information as often as it was present in the notes of the original translator and later critics.
The issue of language:
As I have said REPEATEDLY, this database is for research and to help researchers, and therefore, since the modern scientific language, according to the majority of scientific work, is English, ALL references and texts MUST be in English. If they are not already in English and you are translating originally, then you are providing a great service to the scientific community.
In the past dozen years or so, the tendency of scholars to include quotes in Latin or Greek or German, etc, has been much criticized and the cutting edge workers now operate almost exclusively in English. Only a few die-hards still quote in Latin and Greek without translation. For our purposes, we just dispense with the Latin and Greek and if the reader knows them, or other languages, and they have the source citation, they can get the volume and check the translation themselves.
Now, I repeated this thing about standardization of language a number of times, but it seems that certain persons were not listening. If you cannot do what is asked of you for this project, just say so and resign because what you are doing is NOT helping me, and the beginning purpose of this database was to help ME to get the data for the next books! If you can't give me help, just go away!
According to this outline, I'm going to make the following changes to the HED:
1) The current dating fields will be renamed to "Date as given"
2) I'll add dating fields for "Date corrected". If a corrected date is entered, the Event must have at least one Text citing a source giving the reason for this corrected date.
3) Index Keywords will no longer be per-Event, but per-Text.
4) Texts will be reusable across Events (to avoid duplication).
5) We will be able to enter ancient authors with their lifespans (birth, death, 'floruit'), to plot against the event graphs (also Laura's idea suggested last year)
The rest will pretty much stay the same as it is now. Already reviewed entries won't have to be reviewed again, so we can proceed where we left off and no work will be lost :)
The other mentioned aspects will only figure in the review process.
1) The current dating fields will be renamed to "Date as given"
2) I'll add dating fields for "Date corrected". If a corrected date is entered, the Event must have at least one Text citing a source giving the reason for this corrected date.
3) Index Keywords will no longer be per-Event, but per-Text.
4) Texts will be reusable across Events (to avoid duplication).
5) We will be able to enter ancient authors with their lifespans (birth, death, 'floruit'), to plot against the event graphs (also Laura's idea suggested last year)
The rest will pretty much stay the same as it is now. Already reviewed entries won't have to be reviewed again, so we can proceed where we left off and no work will be lost :)
The other mentioned aspects will only figure in the review process.
Data said:
It took me a bit longer than 2 weeks, but the work has been completed. The HED now has moved to an official location and has got a shiny new public interface for browsing (hope you like the peacock-colored theme)! :D
http://hed.quantumfuturegroup.org/
I've added it to Google for indexing and made extensive SEO (search engine optimizations). On the start page, you'll see an interactive timeline graph, showing all published events as little squares on the bottom, and the lifespans of ancient chroniclers as horizontal bars. You can zoom in or out with the slider at the bottom of the graph, and you can hover your mouse over all the bars and squares to get tooltip-like information.
If you click on a horizontal bar of a chronicler, all Events reported by him are displayed in red. You also can highlight displayed events by category by using the drop-down selection.
If you click on one of the Event-squares, the Event and all belonging citations are displayed below the graph.
The public interface also has a sortable and searchable Event List and an About page. Sources (book information etc.) are linked from each Event page.
Maybe you can click around a bit, test it, and report back if you have any suggestions etc. I've tested the site in Firefox and Chrome in both Windows and Linux, but haven't yet tested it on a Mac. Maybe someone using a Mac can tell me if it displays okay?
For all HED editors: The public interface of the HED only will show Events set to the state "published_web" (which is one higher than "review_passed"). Right now, there are about 40 published Events. It will fill up as we go along with the review process. The login link has changed, and I don't want to post it here because it's private from now on. Could all Editors who want to continue working with the HED send me a PM, so that I can send you the new login link? Thanks!
Attachments
I've sent the new login URL to all the editors. For clarification: The URL hed.quantumfuturegroup.org now contains everything:
1) the public interface (visible to everyone without login) and
2) the private editing interface for all editors. The latter has remained 99% the same compared to 3 weeks ago, so there's nothing new to learn or getting used to. ;)
The new public interface has the turquoise/green/blue-ish background (peacock-ish), and the private interface still has the brown/beige background as before.
For the next weeks I'd like to ask all editors to only submit 1 Event for review at a time (before we said it can be a bundle of 5, but I can't handle so much right now).
I've still got a few reviews to do...
- zadiussky: 5 events
- zadig: 4 events
- palinurus: 2 events
... so please wait until they are done before you submit more.
If you need clarifications, more info, report bugs, improvements etc. don't hesitate to post here, as always! :)
1) the public interface (visible to everyone without login) and
2) the private editing interface for all editors. The latter has remained 99% the same compared to 3 weeks ago, so there's nothing new to learn or getting used to. ;)
The new public interface has the turquoise/green/blue-ish background (peacock-ish), and the private interface still has the brown/beige background as before.
For the next weeks I'd like to ask all editors to only submit 1 Event for review at a time (before we said it can be a bundle of 5, but I can't handle so much right now).
I've still got a few reviews to do...
- zadiussky: 5 events
- zadig: 4 events
- palinurus: 2 events
... so please wait until they are done before you submit more.
If you need clarifications, more info, report bugs, improvements etc. don't hesitate to post here, as always! :)
