Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (17)
- Article (2)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Other (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (23)
Keywords
- Datenmanagement (23) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (20)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (3)
- Postprint (2)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (20)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (2)
Publisher
- European Language Resources Association (4)
- CLARIN (3)
- European Language Resources Association (ELRA) (2)
- Linköping University Electronic Press (2)
- Springer (2)
- Zenodo (2)
- Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft (1)
- MIT Press (1)
- Stanford University Library (1)
- Universität Hamburg - Sonderforschungsbereich 538 (1)
Linguistics is facing the challenge of many other sciences as it continues to grow into increasingly complex subfields, each with its own separate or overarching branches. While linguists are certainly aware of the overall structure of the research field, they cannot follow all developments other than those of their subfields. It is thus important to help specialists but also newcomers alike to bushwhack through evolved or unknown territory of linguistic data. A considerable amount of research data in linguistics is described with metadata. While studies described and published in archived journals and conference proceedings receive a quite homogeneous set of metadata tags — e.g., author, title, publisher —, this does not hold for the empirical data and analyses that underlie such studies. Moreover, lexicons, grammars, experimental data, and other types of resources come in different forms; and to make things worse, their description in terms of metadata is also not uniform, if existing at all. These problems are well-known and there are now a number of international initiatives — e.g., CLARIN, FlareNet, MetaNet, DARIAH — to build infrastructures for managing linguistic resources. The NaLiDa project, funded by the German Research Foundation, aims at facilitating the management and access to linguistic resources originating from German research institutions. In cooperation with the German SFB 833 research center, we are developing a combination of faceted and full-text search to give integrated access through heterogeneous metadata sets. Our approach is supported by a central registry for metadata field descriptors, and a component repository for structured groups of data categories as larger building blocks.
Measuring the quality of metadata is only possible by assessing the quality of the underlying schema and the metadata instance. We propose some factors that are measurable automatically for metadata according to the CMD framework, taking into account the variability of schemas that can be defined in this framework. The factors include among others the number of elements, the (re-)use of reusable components, the number of filled in elements. The resulting score can serve as an indicator of the overall quality of the CMD instance, used for feedback to metadata providers or to provide an overview of the overall quality of metadata within a repository. The score is independent of specific schemas and generalizable. An overall assessment of harvested metadata is provided in form of statistical summaries and the distribution, based on a corpus of harvested metadata. The score is implemented in XQuery and can be used in tools, editors and repositories.
The Component Metadata Infrastructure (CMDI) in a project on sustainable linguistic resources
(2012)
The sustainable archiving of research data for predefined time spans has become increasingly important to researchers and is stipulated by funding organizations with the obligatory task of being observed by researchers. An important aspect in view of such a sustainable archiving of language resources is the creation of metadata, which can be used for describing, finding and citing resources. In the present paper, these aspects are dealt with from the perspectives of two projects: the German project for Sustainability of Linguistic Data at the University of Tubingen (NaLiDa, cf. http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/nalida) and the Dutch-Flemish HLT Agency hosted at the Institute for Dutch Lexicology (TST-Centrale, cf.http://www.inl.nl/tst-centrale). Both projects unfold their approaches to the creation of components and profiles using the Component Metadata Infrastructure (CMDI) as underlying metadata schema for resource descriptions, highlighting their experiences as well as advantages and disadvantages in using CMDI.
This paper describes the status of the standardization efforts of a Component Metadata approach for describing Language Resources with metadata. Different linguistic and Language & Technology communities as CLARIN, META-SHARE and NaLiDa use this component approach and see its standardization of as a matter for cooperation that has the possibility to create a large interoperable domain of joint metadata. Starting with an overview of the component metadata approach together with the related semantic interoperability tools and services as the ISOcat data category registry and the relation registry we explain the standardization plan and efforts for component metadata within ISO TC37/SC4. Finally, we present information about uptake and plans of the use of component metadata within the three mentioned linguistic and L&T communities.
Signposts for CLARIN
(2020)
An implementation of CMDI-based signposts and its use is presented in this paper. Arnold et al. 2020 present Signposts as a solution to challenges in long-term preservation of corpora, especially corpora that are continuously extended and subject to modification, e.g., due to legal injunctions, but also may overlap with respect to constituents, and may be subject to migrations to new data formats. We describe the contribution Signposts can make to the CLARIN infrastructure and document the design for the CMDI profile.
Signposts for CLARIN
(2021)
An implementation of CMDI-based signposts and its use is presented in this paper. Arnold, Fisseni et al. (2020) present signposts as a solution to challenges in long-term preservation of corpora. Though applicable to digital resources in general, we focus on corpora, especially those that are continuously extended or subject to modification, e.g., due to legal injunctions, but also may overlap with respect to constituents, and may be subject to migrations to new data formats. We describe the contribution signposts can make to the CLARIN infrastructure, notably virtual collections, and document the design for the CMDI profile.
The chapter on formats and models for lexicons deals with different available data formats of lexical resources. It elaborates on their structure and possible uses. Motivated by the restrictions in merging different lexical resources based on widely spread formalisms and international standards, a formal lexicon model for lexical resources is developed which is related to graph structures in annotations. For lexicons this model is termed the Lexicon Graph. Within this model the concepts of lexicon entries and lexical structures frequently described in the literature are formally defined and examples are given. The article addresses the problem of ambiguity in those formal terms. An implementation based on XML and XML technology such as XQuery for the defined structures is given. The relation to international standards is included as well.
The transfer of research data management from one institution to another infrastructural partner is all but trivial, but can be required,for instance, when an institution faces reorganisation or closure. In a case study, we describe the migration of all research data, identify the challenges we encountered, and discuss how we addressed them. It shows that the moving of research data management to another institution is a feasible, but potentially costly enterprise. Being able to demonstrate the feasibility of research data migration supports the stance of data archives that users can expect high levels of trust and reliability when it comes to data safety and sustainability.
The transfer of research data management from one institution to another infrastructural partner is all but trivial, but can be required, for instance, when an institution faces reorganization or closure. In a case study, we describe the migration of all research data, identify the challenges we encountered, and discuss how we addressed them. It shows that the moving of research data management to another institution is a feasible, but potentially costly enterprise. Being able to demonstrate the feasibility of research data migration supports the stance of data archives that users can expect high levels of trust and reliability when it comes to data safety and sustainability.