inlustre monumentum est

~ An Antipodean View on Classical Greece, Rome & the Mediterranean.

inlustre monumentum est

Category Archives: Software & Tools

LatinOWL for iPad

25 Thursday Apr 2013

Posted by scot mcphee in Digital Classics, Latin Classics, Personal, Software & Tools

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

ios, ipad, latin, latinOWL, x=x

I have previously written about LatinOWL for iPhone which I released on the app store last month.

Can’t work out the root form of a irregular Latin conjugation? Confused as to whether it’s a 3rd declension neuter plural or a 1st declension feminine ablative .. or even nominative? Is that 1st/2nd pl. dative or ablative, or a 3rd m/f sing. genitive? Know how to parse the form, but don’t know the vocabulary?

Well, there’s an App for that!

There’s now a free iPad version available. You can read more about it, and get it from the App Store, via this link: http://inlustre.net/latinowl/.

How to retrieve ancient text data from Perseus

10 Wednesday Apr 2013

Posted by scot mcphee in Classics resources, Digital Classics, Greek Classics, Latin Classics, Software & Tools

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

data, digital humanities, digital resources, Perseus, software systems, x=x

In my last post I was describing problems with the URL schema not being entirely predictable, and therefore computable from body of text to body of text (e.g. from Livy to Caesar). That is the way the URLs are formed, what constitutes a ‘body of text’, and what you might expect to see returned in a request and how that varies with each textual work.

Update: Schema will now include a ‘urn’ attribute

Warning: this is a long and somewhat technical post about using the Perseus CTS API to fetch classical texts as XML data

This stuff is important for software developers and “digital classicists” (that is, classicists who work with computer-information systems for analysing information about the classical world).

On the Digital Classics mailing list, some helpful hints managed to emerge to my queries. The first is, the Perseus XML interface I was using (it’s the one that’s behind the helpful “XML” button at the bottom of each passage in the HTML version that you typically use with your web browser) is probably on its last legs.

CTS Overview

The more up-to-date (but still in beta) version is Perseus CTS; where “CTS” stands for Canonical Text Services. CTS is built on work done by the Homer Multitext Project.

CTS appears to have three main functional components:

  • A catalogue service (actually called “getCapabilities”)
  • A reference validation and exploration service
  • A service that retrieves text

Some commentary on its limitations

What it is missing, is a search service. The catalogue is huge. It has listed in it every available Greek and Roman text in the Perseus database and includes details of all editions and translation of each text. It’s available here http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/CTS?request=GetCapabilities and I’m not actually linking that URL because don’t click on it just yet. It’s 2.1 MB of XML. Your browser may not like especially like it. Mine only manages to load it properly half the time.

When you do manage to download it and save it on your local disk (highly recommended), you’ll see it’s a pretty comprehensive catalogue of the data. Unordered. With no links to the texts in either the reference validation or text retrieval services, and nothing obvious as a field that gives you the unique identifier needed.

What the references are constructed from

The reference validation service assumes you know the reference you want to validate (and discover the sub-components of). But you need that first-level peek into the initial reference. Perseus uses Thesaurus Linguae Graecae referencing system for Greek texts, and the Packard Humanities Institute PHI Latin Texts system for Latin texts. These both principally organise their respective corpora around authors, assigning each their own index number. Thus, Homer is ‘tlg0012′ and Livy ‘phi0914′.

The references are formatted into a type of reference called a URN.

How to create the references

Now I’m going to tell you how to construct a functional reference ID for the CTS system.

First thing, load the catalogue URL into your browser. I’m not going to link it but cut and paste this one into your browser: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/CTS?request=GetCapabilities – if you know how to use Wget or Curl use that instead.

Save the file to a convenient location on your disk. I called mine “CTS.xml”.

Open the file in a text editor. Notepad won’t cut it. Word most certainly will not (it’s not even a text editor!). One the Mac, I recommend BBEdit. [Update: it's been pointed out on the mailing list that Oxygen XML editor is an ideal tool. I use this tool at work and have it on my Mac at home. An Academic licence is $99, a full one nearly $500. Unless you do extensive work in XML I would not recommend to buy it. Probably on Windows by default Internet Explorer is the default program for an XML file. It, or Safari on the Mac, will suffice to read the document. Google's Chrome also works pretty well. Browsers will also "pretty print" the XML to make it easier to view.]

Use your editor’s search capability to find the author you want.

The ‘textgroup’ (normally the author) identifies the first level

You’ll find that the author’s work is contained in an XML element called “textgroup”. Here’s the text group for Livy, along with the groupname element identifying it:

<textgroup projid="latinLit:phi0914">
  <groupname xml:lang="en">Titus Livius (Livy)</groupname>
  ... (thousands of lines omitted)
</textgroup>

Pay careful attention to the ‘projid’ attribute of the textgroup. This helps form the root of the URN used to identify the text in Perseus. The URN always starts with ‘urn:cts:’. Add the projid to that, like this:

urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914

Check it in the reference validation service

That’s all texts/editions/translations by/of Livy in the Perseus database. Here’s a link to the reference validation service: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/CTS?request=GetValidReff&urn=urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914. If you open that link, you’ll see, in XML, a list of all the available URNs for every version and edition and translation of Livy in the database. But unfortunately, no descriptive information what each version edition or translation is!

We still need the catalogue file. Go back to the catalogue file.

The ‘work’ identifies the next level of reference

Search for a book. In my case, let’s look for “Book 1″ of Livy. You’ll see the catalogue file is unordered. The version I looked at, Livy books started at Book 11 (what? The one of the missing books is miraculously in the Perseus database I hear you say? Unfortunately, it’s just the periocha of book 11). The unordered nature of the database make it especially annoying: you have to search, and you can’t browse.

Anyway the entry for Book 1 looks something like this:

<textgroup projid="latinLit:phi0914">
  <groupname xml:lang="en">Titus Livius (Livy)</groupname>
  <!-- ... (thousands of lines omitted) -->
  <work projid="latinLit:phi0011" xml:lang="lat">
    <title xmlns="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xml:lang="en">
    The History of Rome, Book 1</title>
 <!-- ... (thousands of lines omitted) -->
</work></textgroup>

See how the Book is contained in an XML element called “work”? Note the “projid” element of the work. In this case, we don’t need the “latinLit:” part, the interesting part of the id is the “phi0011″: that’s the ID for Book 1 of Livy. We add it to the URN we’ve been constructing as follows:

urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi0011

The ‘edition’ and/or ‘translation’ identifies a specific version of the work

While that’s supposed to be valid reference to Livy’s book 1, Perseus contains at least two Latin editions of the text and three English translations. These are listed inside the “work” element in either “edition” or “translation” elements, like so (for brevity I have omitted some lines that give data about the citation system of the edition):

<work projid="latinLit:phi0011" xml:lang="lat">
  <title xmlns="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xml:lang="en">
   The History of Rome, Book 1</title>
  <edition projid="latinLit:perseus-lat1">
    <label xml:lang="en">The History of Rome, Book 1</label>
    <description xmlns="" xml:lang="en">Titi Livi ab urbe condita libri 
     editionem priman curavit Guilelmus Weissenborn editio altera auam
     curavit Mauritius Mueller Pars I. Libri I-X. Editio Stereotypica.
     Titus Livius. W. Weissenborn. H. J. M&amp;#252;ller. Leipzig. 
     Teubner. 1898. 1.
    </description>
    <!-- some lines omitted -->         
  </edition>
  <translation projid="latinLit:perseus-eng1">
    <label xml:lang="en">The History of Rome, Book 1</label>
    <description xmlns="" xml:lang="en">Livy. Books I and II With An
     English Translation. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard 
     University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1919.
    </description>
    <!-- some lines omitted -->         
  </translation>
  <edition projid="latinLit:perseus-lat2">
    <label xml:lang="en">The History of Rome, Book 1</label>
    <description xmlns="" xml:lang="en">Livy. Books I and II With An
     English Translation. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard 
     University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1919.
    </description>
    <!-- some lines omitted -->         
  </edition>
  <edition projid="latinLit:perseus-lat3">
    <label xml:lang="en">The History of Rome, Book 1</label>
    <description xmlns="" xml:lang="en">Livy. Ab urbe condita. Robert
     Seymour Conway. Charles Flamstead Walters. Oxford. Oxford 
     University Press. 1914. 1.</description>
    <!-- some lines omitted -->         
    <memberof collection="Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman"></memberof>
  </edition>
  <translation projid="latinLit:perseus-eng2">
    <label xml:lang="en">The History of Rome, Book 1</label>
    <description xmlns="" xml:lang="en">Livy. History of Rome by Titus
     Livius, the first eight Books. literally translated, with notes 
     and illustrations, by. D. Spillan. York Street, Covent Garden,
     London. Henry G. Bohn. John Child and son, printers. 1857. 1.
    </description>
    <!-- some lines omitted -->         
  </translation>
  <translation projid="latinLit:perseus-eng3">
    <label xml:lang="en">The History of Rome, Book 1</label>
    <description xmlns="" xml:lang="en">Perseus:bib:oclc,2311635, Livy.
     History of Rome. English. Translation by. Rev. Canon Roberts. New
     York, New York. E. P. Dutton and Co. 1912. 1. Livy. History of 
     Rome. English Translation. Rev. Canon Roberts. New York, New York.
     E.P. Dutton and Co. 1912. 2.</description>
    <!-- some lines omitted -->         
  </translation>
</work>

Now, assuming we’re after the Teubner edition of the text (the first one), we can use that edition’s ‘projId’ attribute as before, and stripping the ‘latinLit’ from it and adding it to the URN we’ve been building up, we get:

urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi0011.perseus-lat1

This is the complete reference to the Weissenborn & Mueller edition of Livy’s Book 1 published by Teubner.

Check it in the reference service

We can hit up the reference validation service with that URN as follows: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/CTS?request=GetValidReff&urn=urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi0011.perseus-lat1 – you will see a complete collection of URNs for the distinct parts of Book 1 in the Teubner edition of the text.

URNs for specific passages

This URN is all of the preface that’s found at the start of Book 1:

urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi0011.perseus-lat1:pr

This URN is all of Chapter 1 of Book 1 (not including the preface):

urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi0011.perseus-lat1:1

You can also get parts of chapters, here is 1.4.2:

urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi0011.perseus-lat1:4.2

Fetch the text chunk you want

These arguments are passed to the ‘urn’ parameter of text retrieval service of Perseus like this: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/CTS?request=GetPassage&urn=urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi0011.perseus-lat1:pr (that’s the preface).

Anatomy of the URN format used by Perseus

    urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi0011.perseus-lat1:4.2
    {1}:{2}:   {3}  :   {4} . {5}   .  {6}       :{7}
  • {1} It’s a urn. This part is fixed.
  • {2} The urn is part of the ‘cts’ namespace. This part is fixed.
  • {3} The Latin Literature namespace. Would be ‘greekLit’ for Greek texts, and possibly other values.
  • {4} The textgroup’s identifier. It’s normally either the TLG or PHI author index value. In the catalogue it’s contained in the ‘projid’ attribute of the ‘textgroup’ element, stripped of the namespace.
  • {5} The work’s identifier. This may map to an author’s title or to an individual book in a larger collection of texts. This also apparently comes from either TLG or PHI indices (I’ve not verified this fact for sure). In the catalogue it’s contained in the ‘projid’ attribute of the ‘work’ element, stripped of the namespace.
  • {6} The edition of the work. This may also be a translation. This is a Perseus-specific value. In the catalogue it’s contained in the ‘projid’ attribute of the ‘edition’ or ‘translation’ element, stripped of the namespace.
  • {7} The text reference. This will be specific to the work and edition you are referencing. You can find out a simple unadorned list of what’s available by querying the reference validation service with the URN up to this point at the argument.

Note how the textgroup, work and edition use dots for separators but otherwise the data element delimiter is a colon.

Commentary

There are still problems:

  • You cannot get all of book 1 in a single hit (at least for Livy).
  • If you want book 2, you have to repeat this process (it’s phi0012)
    • So, Chapter 1 of book 2 of the Teubner text looks like this URN: urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi0012.perseus-lat1:1
    • Repeat and rinse for other books/editions
  • Entirely different authors and works may have different results or slightly different algorithms for building URNs.
  • The catalogue elements ‘textgroup’, ‘work’, ‘edition’ and ‘translation’ should each have a child element, ‘urn’, that builds this URN for you, so that such explanations as I’ve attempted are unnecessary.
  • The reference checking service needs to include a modicum of descriptive information about the URNs that are returned.
  • There needs to be a search service that stitches all this together.

I hope someone can find this of use.

Latin OWL for iPad (preview)

03 Wednesday Apr 2013

Posted by scot mcphee in Digital Classics, Latin Classics, Linguistics, News Items, Personal, Software & Tools

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

latinOWL

For those people who’ve had kind words about LatinOWL, and for the several hundred of you who have already downloaded the App, thank you very much! Here are some links, if you want to say up to date with the latest on the App’s development (especially for those of you who have asked about an iPad version), or if you have questions or support issues.

  • Latin OWL Facebook page
  • @LatinOWLApp on Twitter
  • LatinOWL for iPhone – FREE

For the several people asking about the iPad version, there’s a little way to go before it will be ready for me to upload to the App Store. I will probably put it up in the store once I’ve got the search history working to my satisfaction (for example: filtering out bad searches!). I actually used the iPad version on the weekend to help me while I was doing some translation and using it “in anger” is one of the best ways to work out what needs to be fixed in order to be usable in a basic sense.

There are some other features, such as much prettier formatting of the dictionary entry on the right hand side, that also need to be added. The very plain formatting works on the iPhone version because of the lack of space, however on the iPad it needs more legible formatting. I’ve also got some ideas to use the XML dictionary versions from Perseus rather than HTML but this would require more processing (and more programming on my part) before it can be displayed. I’m also thinking heavily about “pre-loading” the dictionary when you do the search so the entries appear almost “instantly”. However instead of waiting until I get every little last thing done, what I’ll do is release the initial version and try to push regular updates (as iOS users will know, updates are free once you buy the App). There’ll be more updates however as I add more features.

In the meantime, to whet your appetites, here are some screenshots of the current development version of the iPad version.

  • LatinOWL 4 iPad search results with a selected entry: Results

  • LatinOWL 4 iPad search entry popover: Search

  • LatinOWL 4 iPad previously searched history list: History

A free iOS app for Latinists

31 Sunday Mar 2013

Posted by scot mcphee in Academia, Classics resources, Digital Classics, Latin Classics, Personal, Software & Tools

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

ios, latin, latinOWL, x=x

Can’t work out the root form of a irregular Latin conjugation? Confused as to whether it’s a 3rd declension neuter plural or a 1st declension feminine ablative .. or even nominative? Is that 1st/2nd pl. dative or ablative, or a 3rd m/f sing. genitive? Know how to parse the form, but don’t know the vocabulary?

Well, there’s an App for that!

I’ve written an iOS app for iPhone (4, 4s, & 5, with iOS 6) called LatinOWL. It is available for free. It allows you to lookup any inflection of a Latin word, find the root form, and select the dictionary entry. The data comes from Perseus.

You can read more about it at this link: http://inlustre.net/latinowl/.

Or, just get it straight from the App Store.

There is a much more powerful (but not free) iPad version in the works. There are no plans for Android versions.

On referencing – a note to book and journal editors

27 Thursday Dec 2012

Posted by scot mcphee in Academia, Software & Tools

≈ Comments Off

Tags

citation, endnotes, footnotes, referencing

  1. Endnotes blow big dirty chunks. They are anti-reader. Please, do not ever use endnotes, I don’t care how venerable your journal is and how long its been in business and how many decades you’ve used end-notes. Get rid of them. Footnotes only. If you hate the look of footnotes at the bottom of the page, too bad, don’t have any notes (or use an inline style, like MLA).
  2. That old style of referencing, e.g. ‘Burck., op. cit. 32ff’ … no, a thousand times no! I’m interested in this reference. Now I have to search through all your references backwards from this reference because you may have quoted several works by someone like Burck. Again, it’s anti-reader. Stop it.
  3. Use a variation of Author:Date format, inline or footnoted, it’s not important, like this: ‘Author YEAR: page’ … then attach a bibliography (particularly after I read your article and realise it is only of marginal interest to my own research but I nonetheless want to raid your bibliography).

Thanks ever so much,

A frustrated PhD student.

(Greece & Rome, I’m looking at you especially)

On using my iPad for writing my thesis

03 Saturday Nov 2012

Posted by scot mcphee in Personal, Software & Tools

≈ Comments Off

Tags

ipad, modern life is rubbish, writing

On my technology blog “let x=x” I wrote:

For writing, i.e. getting out complex ideas quickly without interrupting flow, a keyboard is supreme (for the moment at the least). For example, when I went to Los Angeles six weeks ago (a 14 hour flight from Brisbane) I had the iPad with the Zagg with me on the plane and I had a compelling thought that was going to feed into a paper I am writing for ASCS 2013 conference; I was able to quickly churn out about 1200 words for the paper right there on the plane. Now I also had the laptop (a MacBook Pro 15″) on the plane in the overhead locker, but really, the iPad with the Zagg keyboard is exactly perfect for this.

Read the rest: http://www.crazymcphee.net/x/2012/11/03/keyboards-and-tablets-and-writing/.

Digital Classics and the data of ineffable mystery

31 Wednesday Oct 2012

Posted by scot mcphee in Digital Classics, English Literature, Greek Classics, Latin Classics, Literature, Science & Tech, Software & Tools

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

data, digital humanities, literature

I found that this article, by Stephen Marche titled Literature is not Data: Against Digital Humanities, in the Los Angeles Review of Books, was very thought provoking as far as polemic goes. Of course literature isn’t just mere “data”; but I also think that data about literature can still give you insight into it. One of the comments, by “mad scientist”, sums up the biggest problem with this critique when it says:

… simply to insist — again — on the ineffable mystery of literature isn’t particularly interesting.

Literature, like all art, does have an element of “ineffable mystery” but that’s not the only thing it has.

Anyway the entire polemic seems to me to be misplaced. It might be a new feeling for academics of English literature to be relying on databases and software tools but I suspect most modern Classicists simply couldn’t live without their Perseus or Brepolis access. Perhaps because Classicists are also nearly always Classical Historians and many of us have a close relationship with Archaeology and Archaeologists. Many of us Are Archeologists first and foremost (I’m not, however). Those of us trained in the Internet Age are completely normalised to the idea of databases and digital resources. Many of us have pocket Latin and Greek dictionaries in the form of smartphone applications.

But I think, in the Classical field, it goes to something deeper. Our field has always had an element of this: lonely scholars slaving over commentaries, compiling dictionaries or creating concordances. I certainly do not envy those who came before us and built up databases of texts with an index for every unique word stem used in it! That, to me sounds like such an amazingly stultifying job description, I’m glad I live in an age when all that prior hard word can be digitised and automated and made available for my daily use at the touch of a button!

But there’s also a great insight that I think is yet to be fully realised. For example, the creation and classifying of stemma codicum, so important to us in understanding how the literature has been transmitted to us through the ages, I think may be an area that will benefit from future computational insights. Another could be understanding the relationship of texts and authors; and the identification of insertions and errata another. These are things which were once done by hand, now the use of computers can speed them up and let scholars do the important work of humanist analysis and understanding rather than the mere donkey-work of collating word-frequency tables and transmission of stylistic markers in different works. Where the understanding of texts intersects with the understanding of history, the use of computational analysis, like that of definitive archaeological data before that, will also help us to sharpen our focus and broaden our horizons.

I for one welcome our new computer overlords.

Creating academic documents without Microsoft Word

28 Tuesday Aug 2012

Posted by scot mcphee in Academia, Software & Tools

≈ Comments Off

Tags

modern life is rubbish, software systems, writing, x=x

Anyone who knows me, or reads this blog will know all about my absolute disdain for Microsoft software; both in terms of operating systems (i.e. Windows) and especially their “productivity” tools like Word, Excel and Powerpoint (well, Excel, if you need a spreadsheet, is a fairly good program, but its being ruined by its ‘Officization’). If there is a God, I believe there is a special place in hell reserved for the designers and developers of Outlook especially.

In regards to authoring academic works, I’ve written on multiple occasions previously about various tools and software process for scholarly research, and especially, on not using Word in the writing process for my PhD.

I’m very pleased to report I’ve been able to eliminate almost entirely Microsoft Word from this process. I still have to send chapter drafts to my supervisor in RTF format, which can be opened in Word. My graduate school “milestone” documents (which I must complete at regular intervals to show progress) also come in Word flavour only. But from the mainline of my PhD chapters; Word is now officially gone.

To guide my research process I use a program called Papers. This is highly recommended for all scholars. To write the document drafts, I use Scrivener. Scrivener allows you to write in short sections, which it terms “Scrivenings”. These can be reduced to an index card view on the front of which you can put a short summary, and engage in some drag and drop rearranging of your argument or writing. All that process I have documented in this prior post.

What is different is that inside Scrivener I am writing in the MultiMarkdown format. This is a ‘plain text’ style mark up format that allows you to use a plain text editor, if you need to. It is an extension of John Gruber’s original Markdown language (a markup language that I am using to write this blog post in).

MultiMarkdown is pretty neat and allows you to insert markup in a document in such a way that keeps it pretty readable. It also allows you to export to multiple target output formats, the most common being HTML and PDF. To show you just how trivial and easy it is, here’s an example of a Latin quote and translation;

    >*Has tantas viri virtutes ingentia vitia aequabant: 
    inhumana crudelitas perfidia plus quam Punica, nihil 
    veri nihil sancti, nullus deum metus nullum ius 
    iurandum nulla religio* (21.4.9)

    >These great qualities of the man were equalled by his 
    unnatural vices: his inhuman barbarity, his treachery 
    far worse than Punic, he had nothing of truth, nothing 
    of sanctity, he lacked in fear of the gods, had no 
    lawful oaths, and no religious feeling.

(BTW It was also stonkingly trivial to put that code sample into this post.)

As you can see, a single “>” at the start of a paragraph indicates the paragraph is a quote. Text inside a pair of asterisks ( * … * ) is made italic. Two asterisks ( ** … ** ) is bold. In HTML the output of that, in the standard stylesheet of this blog would be;

Has tantas viri virtutes ingentia vitia aequabant: inhumana crudelitas perfidia plus quam Punica, nihil veri nihil sancti, nullus deum metus nullum ius iurandum nulla religio (21.4.9)

These great qualities of the man were equalled by his unnatural vices: his inhuman barbarity, his treachery far worse than Punic, he had nothing of truth, nothing of sanctity, he lacked in fear of the gods, had no lawful oaths, and no religious feeling.

From there in Scrivener, I can export this text to RTF format, for my supervisor and others who insist on broken formats, or for “production” purposes, into LaTeX format. Latex is a proper typesetting markup format that gives you fine control over all sorts of options, and allows output to PDF. The PDF looks absolutely a ton better than anything that Word and its ilk can produce. It has the advantage of being editable in a plain text editor – many common editors such as Textmate or BBEdit have Latex plugins. However the best bet I found was to install the Mac Latex package – this is absolutely free (not just as in beer) and comes with a great Tex/Latex editor called TeXShop. There are also other great Latex editors around.

Latex is often used in Mathematics and Physical Sciences because it how fantastic control over the typesetting of complex equations; something that Word fails abysmally at. It is less common in the Humanities, but not absolutely unknown. However it might seem complex and daunting to people not used to the idea of separating editing and markup from output formats or manipulating computer code in plain text editors. It is most definitely not a WYSIWYG editing system. It looks like the following;

    \begin{quote}\SingleSpace \emph{
    Has tantas viri virtutes ingentia vitia aequabant: 
    inhumana crudelitas perfidia plus quam Punica, nihil 
    veri nihil sancti, nullus deum metus nullum ius 
    iurandum nulla religio} (21.4.9)

    These great qualities of the man were equalled by his 
    unnatural vices: his inhuman barbarity, his treachery 
    far worse than Punic, he had nothing of truth, nothing 
    of sanctity, he lacked in fear of the gods, had no 
    lawful oaths, and no religious feeling.
    \end{quote}

Well actually I tell a little lie here. This is effectively what happens. What I really do, in my document preamble, is define a command called latinquote — like this;

    % quotes Latin test in italic (emph), 
    % then the reference, a blank line, 
    % and then the translation. in \SingleSpace.
    \newcommand{\latinquote}[3] {
        \begin{quote}\SingleSpace \emph{#1} #2

        #3
        \end{quote}
    }

And then in my document, I use the command as follows, supplying it with the three arguments specified as #1 #2 and #3 above;

    \latinquote{
    Has tantas viri virtutes ingentia vitia aequabant: 
    inhumana crudelitas perfidia plus quam Punica, nihil 
    veri nihil sancti, nullus deum metus nullum ius 
    iurandum nulla religio}
    {(21.4.9)}
    {These great qualities of the man were equaled by his 
    unnatural vices: his inhuman barbarity, his treachery 
    far worse than Punic, he had nothing of truth, nothing 
    of sanctity, he lacked in fear of the gods, had no 
    lawful oaths, and no religious feeling.}

But for an old code warrior like me, that’s just fine! Using custom commands like that, if I want to redefine how my Latin quotes are output, I can do it in a single place (in the command definition) and every quote now transforms itself to the defined style next time I generate the PDF. I can also edit and write my project also on my iPad, using the Logitec iPad keyboard/case thing I got. The editor I use on the iPad understands MultiMarkdown and it syncs to Scrivener via text files on Dropbox. I can also edit the Latex directly (but there is only one program on the iPad that will generate the PDF from the Latex file and I’m not sure I want to use it). Additionally, I can check in my Latex files to an SVN or GIT repository for safe keeping and versioning!

I’ve still got a few wrinkles to iron out of my system yet;

  • MultiMarkdown’s referencing system is a bit rubbish (you put the references at the end of the MultiMarkdown document, which is clunky). For the time being I am still using Scrivener’s built in footnote insertion tooling. This converts just fine (in fact, great) to Latex’s footnotes but I’d like to keep to a pure “text only” system if possible.

  • Exporting to RTF through MultiMarkdown from Scrivener doesn’t make attractive RTF files. I may in the future stick to straight Latex and use the latex2rtf converter to get RTF.

  • MultiMarkdown doesn’t produce the cleanest of Latex. I have to spend a bit of time stripping the complexity off the generated Latex. I will have to investigate how to control this process from the outset in MultiMarkdown (specifically, in the MultiMarkdown installation that Scrivener uses).

  • After it goes through the compilation to MultiMarkdown format into Latex, I have to locate all the latin quotes (for example) and re-apply the use of the \latinquote command. This can be tedious; I need to automate it.

  • I need to develop a custom Latex .sty that embodies the various layout parameters that’s expected by my Graduate School (they are pretty basic).

  • I have to work out a good path to integrating Papers, Scrivener, MultiMarkdown with the BibTex referencing system that’s commonly used in Latex.

However it’s great to be free from having to use Microsoft Word clunkiness (now if only they can kill it off at work …).

More reasons to dislike electronic format books

29 Sunday Apr 2012

Posted by scot mcphee in Academia, Classics resources, Digital Classics, Literature, Personal, Software & Tools

≈ Comments Off

Tags

books, citation, copyright, digital humanities, digital resources, ebooks, scholarship

Continuing on from previously:

Another problem with electronic formats is the ease of “skimming” for research purposes. But this is probably more a matter of interface design that needs to catch up. For those who don’t know: to traverse a lot of literature quickly, you need to be able to, non-linearly but nonetheless highly methodically, work your way through a potential target text, often by just reading say, the first and last paragraph of every chapter, or the first and last sentence of every paragraph. Electronic books kind of assume that you will read the entire thing sequentially; flipping through them can be hard.

Something else related to this is the internal references in the text themselves. I mean god knows why book publishers insist on end notes but their idiocy is massively amplified in electronic editions. It’s even worse in multi-author compilations, when you just don’t want to check the end notes, but the bibliography for each article is off with the fairies somewhere down the back the (750-page) book, and the publisher has provided no internal hyperlinking. This is just stupid, and actually makes using the text for what it’s intended, i.e. scholarly research, almost impossible. Why do they do this, even think that’s a good idea? Publishers, if you’re not going to hyperlink the references then every reference ought to be a footnote, and rendered right on the same page with the text it appears in. Got that?

On the dreaded DRM see this excellent post by the author Charlie Stross.

Citing texts from electronic editions

25 Wednesday Apr 2012

Posted by scot mcphee in Academia, Classics resources, Digital Classics, Literature, Personal, Software & Tools

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

books, citation, copyright, digital humanities, digital resources, ebooks, scholarship, x=x

Once again I’m confronted with the practice of the “page” number in modern books when I’m now reading many of the secondary texts in electronic formats (our library prefers to buy the texts in that form, as I’ve ranted about here before, because they use a really stupid Adobe DRM’d format). My school’s PhD referencing guide needs to be updated; it is silent on the issue of e-books. Kindle uses a “Location” number which can be utilised, but it’s specific to the device. If you don’t have a Kindle (lets say you got the same book from Apple iTunes/iBooks, or from another e-book vendor, or you have the paper version), the Kindle “Location” is irrelevant to you.

The real problem here descends from the idea of “page” numbers as the ideal format. It’s tied to a very particular presentation scheme that plainly is about to become out of date. The whole idea of “pages” or whatever proprietary display format you’re looking at ought to be dropped and we should concentrate on the texts themselves.

I’m a classicist. We have standard editions of each text in which each is given a canonical numbering scheme, usually along the lines of book/chapter/sentence. Some examples; Livy 5.51.5 is Intuemini enim horum deinceps annorum vel secundas res vel adversas; invenietis omnia propoera evenisse sequentibus deos, adversa spernentibus. Epic poetry is typically quoted as book and line number, e.g. Vergil Aenid 1.278-9: His ego nec metas rerum nec tempora pono; imperium sine fine dedi, or for collections of shorter poems, book/poem/line, e.g. Horace Carm 2.3.1 Aequam memento rebus in arduis. These citation schema are assigned to each text when a scholar has painstakingly compiled a ‘standard’ edition of the text from the surviving manuscripts (often published by Teubner, so sometimes referred as the ‘Teubner edition’ of the text).

For modern texts, publishers should be now assigning each text a ‘standard edition’ way of citing the text and if necessary, embedding that information into the text itself if the ebook formats won’t support it. This way it won’t matter if the reader uses a Kindle, or a Kobo, or iBooks or even a printed version; the text references are constant, and apparent to all readers.

Of course, ideally the ebook publishers ought to all agree that they will each have a way to embed the publishers’ citation system into each of their own individual formats such that every edition of a text can be referred to in a standardised way by all users of any format. But of course as we are stuck in the “format wars” period and have a vicious, anti-scholarship intellectual property regime imposed on everyone by vested corporate interests, I’d be surprised if that happens.

← Older posts

♣ Pages

  • About
  • LatinOWL

♣ Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

♣

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

♣ Archive

  • May 2013 (1)
  • April 2013 (5)
  • March 2013 (2)
  • February 2013 (2)
  • January 2013 (1)
  • December 2012 (4)
  • November 2012 (3)
  • October 2012 (5)
  • September 2012 (2)
  • August 2012 (2)
  • July 2012 (3)
  • June 2012 (1)
  • May 2012 (2)
  • April 2012 (10)
  • March 2012 (6)
  • February 2012 (3)
  • January 2012 (21)
  • December 2011 (18)
  • November 2011 (61)
  • October 2011 (8)

♣ Classics resources

  • APA
  • ASCS
  • Bryn Mawr Classical Review
  • Classical Association
  • JACT
  • Lacus Curtius
  • Metis
  • Perseus
  • Pleiades

Proudly powered by WordPress Theme: Chateau by Ignacio Ricci.