aspell-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Aspell-user] Extending Dictionaries


From: Sebastian Schleehauf
Subject: [Aspell-user] Extending Dictionaries
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:00:46 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080509)

Hello Kevin,

I think that dictionaries are of quite good quality, but many technical terms are missing (e.g. physics related stuff ). I can only state this for the de dictionary. I was adding many words to my dictionary, but this is a rather slow process and I am not sure how to submit my additions. After thinking about it for a while it might be a good idea to join forces with wikipedia / wiktionary. To me it looks like they have quite a lot of words in their Database and their explanations could be dismissed for spell checking. If this step can be done there would be more people working on the dictionaries and checking each others work... I am not sure about the technical issues, but it can't be to hard I guess. There are some other point which might be of interest:

Since they have other information like noun, verb ... this might be a startingpoint for grammer checking if you plan on doing this in the future.

If the translations they offer are used as well this would be an interesting step in the direction of multi-dictionary support since there could an new kind of misspelling like wrong language denoted with a different color. They have an extra field for plural which could be included since this is missing in many cases for the current dict I am using, but I don't think plurals should be different words. Additionally this might be a huge gain for wikipedia since they can implement spell checking on their side and not leave it to the browser of the user improving their quality... so this is why I think they might put some efforts in it too.

Additionally the words of project Gutenberg could be included to maintain quality only words that have been used in more than n times in n different articles.

I know that this automation of the dictionary creation process might introduce errors and reduce quality but maybe the current maintainers of the dicts are willing to put some time in it to double check. An other thing I was thinking about was to get dictionary creation a more dynamic process. I am not sure if there is a way to implement what I am doing when I am not sure of the spelling os a certain word: I put it in google and whichever spelling gets more hits is the correct one...I don't know how you would determine which words are the same and which words just have the same characters.


Regards,
Sebastian

PS: I am not sure if this belongs in the user mailing list, if not let me know that I can subscribe to whichever list it belongs to.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]