Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (21)
- Article (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (25)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (25) (remove)
Keywords
- Datenmanagement (16)
- Metadaten (14)
- Forschungsdaten (11)
- Computerlinguistik (10)
- Forschung (7)
- Infrastruktur (7)
- CLARIN (6)
- Repository <Informatik> (4)
- Archivierung (3)
- Bibliografische Daten (3)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (19)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (6)
- Postprint (5)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (25) (remove)
Publisher
- European Language Resources Association (5)
- European Language Resources Association (ELRA) (5)
- Springer (3)
- CLARIN (2)
- CLARIN-D (1)
- Institut für Kommunikationswissenschaften der Universität Bonn (1)
- Linköping University Electronic Press (1)
- Narr Francke Attempto (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.
Lexical resources are often represented in table form, e. g., in relational databases, or represented in specially marked up texts, for example, in document based XML models. This paper describes how it is possible to model lexical structures as graphs and how this model can be used to exploit existing lexical resources and even how different types of lexical resources can be combined.
The ISOcat registry reloaded
(2012)
The linguistics community is building a metadata-based infrastructure for the description of its research data and tools. At its core is the ISOcat registry, a collaborative platform to hold a (to be standardized) set of data categories (i.e., field descriptors). Descriptors have definitions in natural language and little explicit interrelations. With the registry growing to many hundred entries, authored by many, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the rather informal definitions and their glossary-like design make it hard for users to grasp, exploit and manage the registry’s content. In this paper, we take a large subset of the ISOcat term set and reconstruct from it a tree structure following the footsteps of schema.org. Our ontological re-engineering yields a representation that gives users a hierarchical view of linguistic, metadata-related terminology. The new representation adds to the precision of all definitions by making explicit information which is only implicitly given in the ISOcat registry. It also helps uncovering and addressing potential inconsistencies in term definitions as well as gaps and redundancies in the overall ISOcat term set. The new representation can serve as a complement to the existing ISOcat model, providing additional support for authors and users in browsing, (re-)using, maintaining, and further extending the community’s terminological metadata repertoire.
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.
Lexicon schemas and their use are discussed in this paper from the perspective of lexicographers and field linguists. A variety of lexicon schemas have been developed, with goals ranging from computational lexicography (DATR) through archiving (LIFT, TEI) to standardization (LMF, FSR). A number of requirements for lexicon schemas are given. The lexicon schemas are introduced and compared to each other in terms of conversion and usability for this particular user group, using a common lexicon entry and providing examples for each schema under consideration. The formats are assessed and the final recommendation is given for the potential users, namely to request standard compliance from the developers of the tools used. This paper should foster a discussion between authors of standards, lexicographers and field linguists.
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.
The use of digital resources and tools across humanities disciplines is steadily increasing, giving rise to new research paradigms and associated methods that are commonly subsumed under the term digital humanities. Digital humanities does not constitute a new discipline in itself, but rather a new approach to humanities research that cuts across different existing humanities disciplines. While digital humanities extends well beyond language-based research, textual resources and spoken language materials play a central role in most humanities disciplines.