Refine
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (18) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (18)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (18) (remove)
Keywords
- Datenmanagement (18) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (18) (remove)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (18)
Publisher
- European Language Resources Association (5)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (3)
- CLARIN (2)
- European Language Resources Association (ELRA) (2)
- Linköping University Electronic Press (1)
- Stanford University Library (1)
- Universität Hamburg - Sonderforschungsbereich 538 (1)
- Universität zu Köln (1)
- Werner Hülsbusch (1)
XML has been designed for creating structured documents, but the information that is encoded in these structures are, by definition, out of scope for XML. Additional sources, normally not easily interpretable by computers, such as documentation are needed to determine the intention of specific tags in a tag-set. The Component Metadata Infrastructure (CMDI) takes a rather pragmatic approach to foster interoperability between XML instances in the domain of metadata descriptions for language resources. This paper gives an overview of this approach.
This paper presents the system architecture as well as the underlying workflow of the Extensible Repository System of Digital Objects (ERDO) which has been developed for the sustainable archiving of language resources within the Tübingen CLARIN-D project. In contrast to other approaches focusing on archiving experts, the described workflow can be used by researchers without required knowledge in the field of long-term storage for transferring data from their local file systems into a persistent repository.
The Manatee corpus management system on which the Sketch Engine is built is efficient, but unable to harness the power of today’s multiprocessor machines. We describe a new, compatible implementation of Manatee which we develop in the Go language and report on the performance gains that we obtained.
Data Management is one of the core activities of all CLARIN centres providing data and services for the academia. In PARTHENOS, European initiatives and projects in the area of the humanities and social sciences assembled to compare policies and procedures. One of the areas of interest is data management. The data management landscape shows a lot of proliferation, for which an abstraction level is introduced to help centres, such as CLARIN centres, in the process of providing the best possible services to users with data management needs.
The paper’s purpose is to give an overview of the work on the Component Metadata Infrastructure (CMDI) that was implemented in the CLARIN research infrastructure. It explains, the underlying schema, the accompanying tools and services. It also describes the status and impact of the CMDI developments done within the CLARIN project and past and future collaborations with other projects.
This paper uses a devil’s advocate position to highlight the benefits of metadata creation for linguistic resources. It provides an overview of the required metadata infrastructure and shows that this infrastructure is in the meantime developed by various projects and hence can be deployed by those working with linguistic resources and archiving. Possible caveats of metadata creation are mentioned starting with user requirements and backgrounds, contribution to academic merits of researchers and standardisation. These are answered with existing technologies and procedures, referring to the Component Metadata Infrastructure (CMDI). CMDI provides an infrastructure and methods for adapting metadata to the requirements of specific classes of resources, using central registries for data categories, and metadata schemas. These registries allow for the definition of metadata schemas per resource type while reusing groups of data categories also used by other schemas. In summary, rules of best practice for the creation of metadata are given.
To optimize the sharing and reuse of existing data, many funding organizations now require researchers to specify a management plan for research data. In such a plan, researchers are supposed to describe the entire life cycle of the research data they are going to produce, from data creation to formatting, interpretation, documentation, short-term storage, long-term archiving and data re-use. To support researchers with this task, we built DMPTY, a wizard that guides researchers through the essential aspects of managing data, elicits information from them, and finally, generates a document that can be further edited and linked to the original research proposal.
In diesem Panel geht es um die Förderung der geisteswissenschaftlichen Forschung durch eine planvolle Erhebung, Archivierung, Veröffentlichung und die dadurch ermöglichte Nachnutzung von Forschungsdaten, die sowohl zur Qualitätssicherung in der Forschung beitragen als auch nicht zuletzt neue Fragestellungen erlauben. Aus unterschiedlichen Perspektiven soll in dem Panel beleuchtet werden, welchen Mehrwert das Datenmanagement für die Forschung in den digitalen Geisteswissenschaften hat, wie man diesen Mehrwert erreicht und auch die Veröffentlichung der Forschungsdaten als ein selbstverständliches Element der Dissemination der Forschungsergebnisse etabliert und wie man gleichzeitig den Aufwand für die Forschung abschätzen kann.
The Component MetaData Infrastructure (CMDI) provides a lego-brick framework for the creation, use and re-use of self-defined metadata formats. The design of CMDI can be a force forgood, but history shows that it has often been misunderstood or badly executed. Consequently,it has led the community towards the dark ages of metadata clutter rather than the bright side of semantic interoperability. In this abstract, we report on the condition of CMDI but also outlinean agenda to make the CMDI world a better place to use, share and profit from metadata.
Wenn man verschiedenartige Forschungsdaten über Metadaten inhaltlich beschreiben möchte, sind bibliografische Angaben allein nicht ausreichend. Vielmehr benötigt man zusätzliche Beschreibungsmittel, die der Natur und Komplexität gegebener Forschungsressourcen Rechnung tragen. Verschiedene Arten von Forschungsdaten bedürfen verschiedener Metadatenprofile, die über gemeinsame Komponenten definiert werden. Solche Forschungsdaten können gesammelt (z.B. über OAI-PMH-Harvesting) und mittels Facetten-basierter Suche über eine einheitliche Schnittstelle exploriert werden. Der beschriebene Anwendungskontext kann über sprachwissenschaftliche Daten hinaus verallgemeinert werden.
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.
This article describes a series of ongoing efforts at the Stanford Literary Lab to manage a large collection of literary corpora (~40 billion words). This work is marked by a tension between two competing requirements – the corpora need to be merged together into higher-order collections that can be analyzed as units; but, at the same time, it’s also necessary to preserve granular access to the original metadata and relational organization of each individual corpus. We describe a set of data management practices that try to accommodate both of these requirements – Apache Spark is used to index data as Parquet tables on an HPC cluster at Stanford. Crucially, the approach distinguishes between what we call “canonical” and “combined” corpora, a variation on the well-established notion of a “virtual corpus” (Kupietz et al., 2014; Jakubíek et al., 2014; van Uytvanck, 2010).
The current state of the art for metadata provision allows for a very flexible approach, catering for the needs of different archives and communities, referring to common data category registries that describe the meaning of a data category at least to authors of metadata. Component models for metadata provisions are for example used by CLARIN and META-SHARE, but there is also an increased flexibility in other metadata schemas such as Dublin Core, which is usually not seen as appropriate for meaningful description of language resources.
Making resources available for others and putting this to a second use in other projects has never been more widely accepted as a sensible efficient way to avoid a waste of efforts and resources. However, when it comes to the details, there is still a vast number of problems. This workshop has aimed at being a forum to address issues and challenges in the concrete work with metadata for LRs, not restricted to a single initiative for archiving LRs. It has allowed for exchange and discussion and we hope that the reader finds the articles here compiled interesting and useful.
Unlike traditional text corpora collected from trustworthy sources, the content of web based corpora has to be filtered. This study briefly discusses the impact of web spam on corpus usability and emphasizes the importance of removing computer generated text from web corpora.
The paper also presents a keyword comparison of an unfiltered corpus with the same collection of texts cleaned by a supervised classifier trained using FastText. The classifier was able to recognize 71% of web spam documents similar to the training set but lacked both precision and recall when applied to short texts from another data set.
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.
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.
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.
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.