Refine
Document Type
Has Fulltext
- yes (7)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (7)
Keywords
- Metadaten (6)
- Datenmanagement (5)
- Forschungsdaten (5)
- Forschung (4)
- Computerlinguistik (3)
- Infrastruktur (3)
- Archivierung (2)
- Component Metadata Infrastructure (CMDI) (2)
- Bibliografische Daten (1)
- CLARIN-D (1)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (6)
- Postprint (1)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (1)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (7)
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.
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.
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.
Creating and maintaining metadata for various kinds of resources requires appropriate tools to assist the user. The paper presents the metadata editor ProFormA for the creation and editing of CMDI (Component Metadata Infrastructure) metadata in web forms. This editor supports a number of CMDI profiles currently being provided for different types of resources. Since the editor is based on XForms and server-side processing, users can create and modify CMDI files in their standard browser without the need for further processing. Large parts of ProFormA are implemented as web services in order to reuse them in other contexts and programs.
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.
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.
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.