C6470 should be Deprecated

[remnqymi]

C6470 should be deprecated. It cites CD 661a, but Crum deletes it in the addenda.

[amir-zeldes]

Thanks for reporting that! I can easily remove it from the CDO online, but we would also need to remove it from the CCL source data. @dwerning @simondschweitzer - can you remove this lemma ID from the source data?

Thanks!

[remnqymi]

I want to take this opportunity to say that one of the nice things about the digitization of Crum on http://remnqymi.com/crum/ is that it already incorporates the addenda. See https://remnqymi.com/crum/3237.html for this particular example.

The digitization also readily bears links to 661 a and xxiv a, which makes it easy to verify the content against the book (the latter shows when you hover over the footnote mark –[1]).

[amir-zeldes]

This is indeed wonderful! We don't have plans to add full text search or digitized display of Crum at the moment, but this is another example of useful information that could be integrated to improve CDO all the same. Is the digitized Crum data available on GitHub or somewhere else in machine readable format?

[remnqymi]

We have the transcription in 3 formats:

1. The source of truth is this sheet (which regularly gets snapshotted into this tsv).¹ This uses a notation developed in-house that mainly captures the format (such as italicized text, bullets, and superscripts) but also such entities as dialect sigla, addenda, segments of non-Latin text², etc.
2. The HTML that renders on https://remnqymi.com/crum/ can be found in this directory. This is fully auto-generated from the sheet.
3. Additionally, we have another in-house notation that encodes an enriched version of the text, which can be found in this directory. Pages in this directory correspond one-to-one to the HTML files (so 1.txt corresponds to 1.html which can be viewed here³). This is also auto-generated, and it contains an encoding of the tooltips that show on the website (for example, Ge 27 1 would show as ⟦Ge 27 1⟧{bible: Genesis 27:1}, Miss 8 257 as ⟦Miss 8 257⟧{reference: Miss}, v as ⟦‹v›⟧{annotation: vide}, etc.)

If needed, generating a plain text version should be trivial. But I believe you may be more interested in the third format, which clearly marks the citations. It was actually conceived just a few days ago (motives listed on pishoyg/coptic#778, where pishoyg/coptic#773 specifically pertains to CDO).

I must say that the enriched version is over 99% accurate, but not yet 100% accurate.⁴ I was planning to share it after squeezing as much as humanly possible out of that last percentage point.

Footnotes

1. The transcription is high-fidelity, but errors are known to exist. I plan to have it reviewed carefully end-to-end to catch any typos that slipped through the cracks. So I wouldn't copy the sheet now because it's expected to change. ↩

2. We use that to distinguish, for example, whether a period marks an abbreviated work, or is just a punctuation mark. ↩

3. The IDs (1 in this example) are meaningless. ↩

4. The biggest source of errors being the incomplete bibliography. Crum cites countless sources that are not mentioned in his list of abbreviations. Other sources of errors are listed here. ↩

[ctschroeder]

This is truly wonderful. Perhaps in the future we can add a link in CDO entries to search in this version of Crum. Thank you!!

[amir-zeldes]

Truly fantastic! I can see applications for this in getting a sanity check/recommended URNs for CDO examples based on Crum's abbreviations. If I can find a student willing to work on it this fall, we will try to make a prototype for that and may come back with questions. Thank you so much for making this available!