OED2 is the 2nd edition of the Oxford English Dictionary.
It is most certainly not public domain data, nor is
the OED (1st edition). The OED2 was published and is now
the multi-volume Oxford English Dictionary you can buy
for a few thousand dollars. It has been out for maybe
I am not sure what your complaint is? Is it that because you
don't have a copy that other people shouldn't refer to the existence
of this data? It isn't a secret database, it is just the proprietary
data of a large publisher who has been very generous in allowing
scholars to work with their database--although NOT in giving away
copies of it.
No, no. You misunderstand. I merely find that a great deal of discussion
here hinges on the OED2. Since this is not freely available information,
I suggest that it is inappropriate to base discussions on it. It is not
out of jealousy on my part over not having access to the database. It is
more a question of misgivings about how this group - one devoted to an "open"
standard - has become so heavily influenced by a collection of data (and
also algorithms?) that not everyone here has ready and free access to.
It's kind of like posting to Usenet about this or that behavior in the Unix
"find" command, and referring constantly to "the source." As we all know,
the Unix source can be had by many individuals at wealthier academic insti-
tutions. Others may have it at the workplace. It is not generally acces-
sible data, though. IF, therefore, a poster wishes to refer to the source,
he or she generally does this with a clear awareness that not everyone has
access to the same information. I just have not found this same level of
awareness and courtesy present here, and I was trying - in my own inept way
- to remind people that, if in fact the OED2 was a commercial product that
not everyone can obtain easy access to, then maybe it might be better for
posters to refer to other corpora.
If this idea offends anyone, or if I have expressed myself ineptly once
again, then I offer my apologies.