Talk:machine-readable dictionary
Add topic
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Sum of parts? (needs formatting) SemperBlotto 10:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Gets a lot of b.g.c. hits. I'd define it as any component following the 'dict' protocol, (rfc:2229) myself. MRD does seem to be the typical abbreviation. --Connel MacKenzie 14:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm marking this RFV passed because it's clearly in widespread use with this sense, as google books:"machine-readable dictionary" and google scholar:"machine-readable dictionary" make clear, even though no one has actually cited it. The "sum of parts" question is better discussed at RFD. —RuakhTALK 17:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
RFD
[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
This seems quite like a dictionary that is machine-readable, which is to say readable by a machine of some kind. That the machine would, at present, be electronic seems immaterial to the concept. DCDuring TALK 20:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- All English dictionaries printed in the traditional way on paper are machine-readable. The term machine-readable dictionary excludes those kinds of dictionaries, and something more specific is meant. Without reading more about these MRDs, I am not sure if they include all electronically digitized dictionaries, or if they are even more specific than that. But, clearly, not every dictionary that is machine-readable is a machine-readable dictionary. —Stephen (Talk) 21:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article backs Stephen up, in fact even the initial 2007 version of that article does. --Mglovesfun (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think that machine-readable dictionary = electronic dictionary (in the form of database) + API, where API allows manipulate dictionary data (e.g. search, insert) from the computer program. So MRD is a subset of all electronic dictionaries. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky 11:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Paper books are not machine-readable. For the large scanning projects that Google and the Internet Archive do, a human has to manually turn the pages on the books. Even then, while one might claim that OCR can handle some books appropriately, dictionaries are not those books. OCR will make a hash of phonetic notation and will not segment the text appropriately.
- Every dictionary that is machine-readable is a machine-readable dictionary; however, like many adjectives, not everyone agrees how machine-readable something has to be to be machine-readable, and the answer tends to depend on context.--Prosfilaes 12:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article backs Stephen up, in fact even the initial 2007 version of that article does. --Mglovesfun (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: sum of parts. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete SoP. — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete because machine-readable is not typically used for paper books (dictionaries or otherwise), even if they can be scanned, but only for things designed to be read by machine, such as OCR. Equinox ◑ 21:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)