Digital Humanities projects using LiveCode

[danielrr]

Please, accept my apologies if this is not the right forum for this question.

Do you know, or are involved, in some project in the field of Digital Humanities which is using LiveCode as one of its main tools / languages?

[stam]

Does Medicine count? - if so, yes, quite a few i think.

I had to look hip the definition of 'digital humanities' - still not really any wiser on the ever shifting set of definitions, but according to the 'digital humanities stack' it would seem that LC is ideally positioned for this...

S.

[danielrr]

there's no accepted or standard definition of Digital Humanities, but we can say they are any kind of study based on the digital modelling of its object, in the field of Humanities. More broadly speaking is the use of computers in he study of Humanities (literature, linguistics, arts, social studies, anthropology, etc.) using computers in a non trivial way, like designing programs for natural language processing, or to create 3D models of artistic buildings, or to study the relation among different characters on a novel or a TV series, etc.

As you say, LC is ideally positioned for this

[FourthWorld]

LC is useful for a great many things, and can play a strong supporting role in a wide range of computing applications.

But I can think of no single software package ideally suited for needs as radically different as semantic analysis and 3D architectural rendering.

[richmond62]

no single software package ideally suited for needs as radically different as semantic analysis and 3D architectural rendering

I would not expect the OP to be looking for that.

BUT s/he needs to be aware that LiveCode (as a programming environment + language) is ideal for data analysis, and for other aspects of linguistics.

[danielrr]

LiveCode (as a programming environment + language) is ideal for data analysis, and for other aspects of linguistics

Absolutely agreed. LC is such a powerful tool for text manipulation it always seemed strange to me it is no much better known among linguists & philologists alike (its handling of Unicode is a bonus: much better that the unicode handling by programs like FileMaker).

I find LC also a powerful tool for building thee interface for complex databases & to prototype many kind of tools.

Still, strange not more people out there are building their Digital Humanities projects around LC

[richmond62]

Still, strange not more people out there are building their Digital Humanities projects around LC

For the simple reason that people in the Humanities are almost 100% unaware of it, and that can be put down to
a peculiar lack of effort to make academics aware of it and its capabilities.

[richmond62]

And, indeed, the ability to play around with Unicode is marvellous:
-

-

-
This just a screenshot from something of mine that leverages a bespoke font that contains a large lexicon of
conjunct consonants (in both Devanagari and Grantha) in the Unicode Private Planes for digitalisation of Historical Indic languages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Use_Areas

https://www.facebook.com/devawriter/

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2vgc1ei088hd ... QQjYa?dl=0

[richmond62]

Of course to pull this sort of thing off (Devawriter Pro) one needs both:

1. Some sort of level of understanding of Sanskrit and the several writing systems that have been used to write it down.

2. Some sort of level of programming in LiveCode (or some other programming language for that matter).

And, while I have had the good fortune to have spent about 6 months ploughing on the back of a tractor and shearing sheep
(giving me plenty of time to teach myself a working knowledge of Sanskrit), a reasonable grounding in Latin grammar,
degrees in Philosophy, Applied Linguistics, and Computers and IT (OK, OK, the last one was worthless, except what I explored
in my thesis [no thanks to the "university"]), not all people in the Humanities have the time to get their heads around
a programming language/suite as well as their area of academic specialisation.

I do believe there should be space inwith academic departments for people who, while having a general background knowledge
of the discipline of the department in which they are embedded, are adept at both computer programming and realising the
needs of "full-blown" academics in that department.

I explore this in a section of the thesis of my second Masters degree:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/aknlqyovmke61 ... f.zip?dl=0

"Software authoring package developers have always presumed that end-users of their packages:
• have an understanding of the principles underpinning computer programming,
• feel comfortable using computers,
• have both the time and inclination to invest effort in learning the in-house programming language of each authoring package.
While the vast majority of software authoring package manuals have claimed that there should be almost no time between installing the software on one’s computer and being able to develop sophisticated, content-rich software this promise has not born fruit.
The literature and software review examines a number of these packages and the claims of their developers.
This thesis will claim that while many educators would like to develop bespoke computer software for content delivery and reinforcement, they are largely unable to without having to spend considerable time and effort learning programming languages or the necessary skills to work with one or more of the 'authoring' packages commercially available."

[stam]

Having thought about this a bit more, it strikes me that the distinction between requirements for 'digital humanities' and other 'scientific' disciplines lacks any substance.

My understanding, limited as it is, is that 'humanities' are basically academic disciplines that study aspects of human society and culture and may have previously chosen to distance themselves from typical methodology followed by other academic disciplines.

Perhaps the 'scientific disciplines' place a higher significance to experimental and evidence based designs and theories, but is there now really a difference?

Both 'humanities' and 'non-humanities' disciplines both rely on scientific reasoning and design and therefore both would equally benefit from everything that is required by 'digital humanities' according to their own blurb on wikipedia. I look at this 'stack' humanities academics have published (and which is reposted on wikipedia) and I'm thinking that we either already use every single element of this 'stack' or would want to in any scientific discipline.

I'd therefore argue that looking at requirements for 'digital humanities' is no different from any other discipline and the distinction is shallow.
I guess people just like labels...

[richmond62]

the distinction is shallow

Oh, Yes, Indeed.

But people (especially academics) love ring-fencing their discipline so it can seem more special
than it really is.

About 25 years ago, defending the thesis of my first masters degree (in Linguistics),
2 members of the committee wanted to fail me because they claimed (quite correctly)
that an awful lot of my thesis concerned the Philosophy of Language and Philosophical
Semantics rather than Linguistic Semantics.

I replied to this load of defensive wall-building that:

1. As I had a Bachelor's degree in Philosophy they should have known where I was coming from.

2. That both of them were endlessly rabbiting on in their lectures about the need for
cross-disciplinary stuff rather than narrow-minded nit-picking.

The 3rd member of the committee told me to leave the room and wait outside: so I did, and heard the almighty explosion inside when that wonderful woman told the other 2 that they were a pair of narrow-minded tossers and that what I had written was better than most of what they with their fancy doctorates had ever written.

Having subsequently worked in 5 Universities in very different parts of the world, and having
a wife who is head of a University department, I can cheerfully state that the best decision
I made in my life was to get out of Universities 20 years ago and start my own little language school.

[stam]

The 3rd member of the committee told me to leave the room and wait outside: so I did, and heard the almighty explosion inside when that wonderful woman told the other 2 that they were a pair of narrow-minded tossers and that what I had written was better than most of what they with their fancy doctorates had ever written.

That's hilarious
Good on you Richmond!

[richmond62]

AND, if "certain" people would wake up and get weaving they would realise just how much
money they could make peddling LiveCode to the ENTIRE academic community.

But as they have not shown any sign of waking up, either in respect of schools, or
in respect of getting new users, I very much doubt that is going to happen soon.

And, as the Open Sourcing of LiveCode was a wild hope that other people were going to do a lot
of peddling, which they didn't; and the lesson shows no sign whatsoever of having been learnt . . .

Too many chances lost, I am afraid.

[richmond62]

-
This snapshot rather better represents what Devawriter Pro can do in terms of the Devanagari script
than the earlier one which I have now deleted.

[richmond62]

And this is fun as it illustrates what Devawriter Pro can do in terms of representing Sanskrit in Grantha script:
-