Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Additional references #28

Closed
monpasang opened this issue Dec 6, 2020 · 3 comments
Closed

Additional references #28

monpasang opened this issue Dec 6, 2020 · 3 comments

Comments

@monpasang
Copy link
Collaborator

This CLDF dataset was also used to come to the following articles, which should be mentioned in the repository on Zenodo:

Bodt, Timotheus Adrianus (accepted, 2021). The Duhumbi perspective on Proto-Western Kho-Bwa onsets. Journal of Historical Linguistics.

Bodt, Timotheus Adrianus. 2019. The Duhumbi perspective on Proto-Western Kho-Bwa rhymes. Die Sprache 52 (2016 / 2017) 2: 141-176.

@LinguList
Copy link
Contributor

When is the big book going to appear? While we can add all references, and we can easily do so, adding them to the NOTES.md field, where additional information can be added, it might be best to publish/quote this dataset as Bodt (without List, who has nothing to do with the data apart from the processing of the forms for computational treatment). How about "CLDF dataset derived from Bodt's "Etymological Dictionary of Western Kho-Bwa"? The "how to quote" could then say something like:

Bodt, T. A. (forthcoming): Etymological Dictionary of Western Kho-Bwa. Version 0.1. ADDRESS: Publisher.

I'd need publisher and address. Or otherwise, the affiliation you select (London, SOAS, whatever, let me know).

@LinguList
Copy link
Contributor

@monpasang, I thought more about this, and it seems to me that it is best to treat different studies based on the Kho-Bwa data as if they use different versions of the data. The data in the studies on prediction and the CLICS paper all use essentially the same data file, as it is given in THIS package, which is provided in CLDF format.

The alternative studies are based on your evolving data, which surely is different in 2016 / 2017 from 2019, etc. So it is best to treat this as a single publication with different editions or a database with different versions and give the data a unifying name (as suggested in my note before). The advantage is that the data then can also "physically" be identified with a given file (bodt-khobwa-cleaned.tsv as the one we used for the predictions). We mention then in the notes, that other versions of the data have lead to other publications.

@monpasang
Copy link
Collaborator Author

monpasang commented Dec 12, 2020

Ok it is fine as it is in the NOTES file now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants