I was on holiday from Monday to Wednesday this week to cover the school half-term, so only worked on Thursday and Friday. On Thursday I had a Zoom call with the Historical Thesaurus team to discuss further imports of new data from the OED and how to export our data (such as the revised category hierarchy) in a format that the OED team would be able to use. We have a meeting with the OED the week after next so it was good to go over some of the issues and refresh my memory about where things were left off as it’s been several months since I last did any major work on the HT. As a result of the meeting I also did some further work, namely exporting the current version of the online database and making it available for Fraser to download and access on his own PC, and updating some of the earlier scripts I’d created to generate statistics about the unmatched categories and words so that they used the most recent versions of the database.
Also this week I made some further tweaks to the SCOSYA website and created a user account for a researcher who is going to work with some of the data that is only available in the project’s CMS rather than the public website. I also read through a new funding proposal that Wendy Anderson is involved with and have her some feedback on that and reported a couple of issues with expired SSL certificates that were affecting some websites.
I spent some time on the Books and Borrowing project on two data-related tasks. First was to look through the new set of digitised images from Edinburgh University Library and decide what we should do with them. Each image is of an open book, featuring both recto and verso pages in one image. We may need to split these up into individual images, or we may just create page records that cover both pages. I alerted the project PI Katie Halsey to the issue and the team will make a decision about which approach to take next week. The second task was to look through the data from Selkirk library that another project had generated. We had previously imported data for Selkirk that another researcher had compiled a few years before our project began, but recently discovered that this data did not include several thousand borrowing records of French prisoners of war, as the focus of the researcher was on Scottish borrowers. We need these missing records and another project has agreed to let us use their data. I had intended to completely replace the database I’d previously ingested with this new data, but on closer inspection of the new data I have a number of reservations about doing so.
The data from the other project has been compiled in an Excel spreadsheet and as far as I can tell there is no record of the ledger volume or page that each borrowing record was originally located on. In the data we already have there is a column for ‘source ref’, containing the ledger volume (e.g. ‘volume 1’) and a column for ‘page number’, containing a unique ID for each page in the spreadsheet (e.g. ‘1010159r’). Looking through the various sheets in the new spreadsheet there is nothing comparable to this, which is vital for our project, as borrowing records must be associated with page records, which in turn must be associated with a ledger. It also would make it extremely difficult to trace a record back to the original physical record.
Another issue is that in our existing data the researcher has very handily used unique identifiers for readers (e.g. ‘brodie_james’), borrowing records (e.g. ‘1’) and books (e.g. ‘adam_view_religion’) that tie the various records together very nicely. The new project’s data does not appear to use any unique identifiers to connect bits of data together. For example, there are three ‘John Anderson’ borrowers and in the data we’re currently using these are differentiated by their IDs as ‘anderson_john’, ‘anderson_john2’ and ‘anderson_john3’. This means it’s easy to tell which borrower appears in the borrowing records. In the new project’s data three different fields are required to identify the borrower: surname, forename and residence. This data is stored in separate columns in the ‘All loans’ sheet (e.g. ‘Anderson’, ‘John’, ‘Cramalt’), but in the ‘Members’ sheet everything is joined together in one ‘Name’ field, e.g. ‘Anderson, John (Cramalt)’. This lack of unique identifiers combined with the inconsistent manner of recording name and place will make it very difficult to automatically join up records and I’ve flagged this up with Katie for further discussion with the team. It’s looking like we may want to try and identify the POW records from the new project’s data and amalgamate these with the data we already have, rather than replacing everything.
I also spent a bit of time on the Anglo-Norman Dictionary this week, making some changes to homonym numbers for a few entries and manually updating a couple of commentaries. I also worked for the Dictionary of the Scots Language, preparing the SND and DOST datasets for import into the new editing system that the project is now going to use. This was a little trickier than anticipated as initially I zipped up the data that I’d exported from the old editing system in November when I worked on the new ‘V4’ version of the online API, but we realised that this still contained duplicates that I’d stripped out when uploading the data into the new online database. So instead I exported the XML from the online database, but it turned out that during the upload process a section of the entry XML was being removed. This section (<meta>) contained all of the forms and URLs and my upload process exported these to a separate table and reformatted the XML so that it matched the structure that was defined during the creation of the first version of the API. However, the new editing system requires this <meta> section so that data I’d prepared was not usable. Instead I took the XML exported from the old editing system back in November and ran it through the script I’d written to strip out duplicates, then prepared the resulting XML dataset for transfer. It looks like this approach has worked, but I’ll find out more next week.