Refine
Document Type
Language
- English (6)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (6)
Keywords
- Metadaten (3)
- Bibliografische Daten (2)
- Bibliothek (2)
- Bibliothekskatalog (2)
- Component MetaData Infrastructure (CMDI) (2)
- Datenmanagement (2)
- Datenqualität (2)
- bibliographic metadata (2)
- Archivierung (1)
- CLARIN (1)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (5)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (1)
Publisher
- European Language Resources Association (ELRA) (6) (remove)
This paper proposes a methodology for querying linguistic data represented in different corpus formats. Examples of the need for queries over such heterogeneous resources are the corpus-based analysis of multimodal phenomena like the interaction of gestures and prosodic features, or syntax-related phenomena like information structure which exceed the expressive power of a tree-centered corpus format. Query languages (QLs) currently under development are strongly connected to corpus formats, like the NITE Object Model (NOM, Carletta et al., 2003) or the Meta-Annotation Infrastructure for ATLAS (MAIA, Laprun and Fiscus, 2002). The parallel development of linguistic query languages and corpus formats is due to the fact that general purpose query languages like XQuery (Boag et al., 2003) do not fulfill the changing needs of linguistically motivated queries, e.g. to give access to (non-)hierarchically organized, theory and language dependent annotations of multi modal signals and/or text. This leads to the problem that existing corpus formats and query languages are hard to reuse. They have to be re developed and re-implemented time-consumingly and expensively for unforeseen tasks. This paper describes an approach for overcoming these problems and a sample application.
The Component MetaData Infrastructure (CMDI) is a framework for the creation and usage of metadata formats to describe all kinds of resources in the CLARIN world. To better connect to the library world, and to allow librarians to enter metadata for linguistic resources into their catalogues, a crosswalk from CMDI-based formats to bibliographic standards is required. The general and rather fluid nature of CMDI, however, makes it hard to map arbitrary CMDI schemas to metadata standards such as Dublin Core (DC) or MARC 21, which have a mature, well-defined and fixed set of field descriptors. In this paper, we address the issue and propose crosswalks between CMDI-based profiles originating from the NaLiDa project and DC and MARC 21, respectively.
The Component MetaData Infrastructure (CMDI) is the dominant framework for describing language resources according to ISO 24622 (ISO/TC 37/SC 4, 2015). Within the CLARIN world, CMDI has become a huge success. The Virtual Language Observatory (VLO) now holds over 800.000 resources, all described with CMDI-based metadata. With the metadata being harvested from about thirty centres, there is a considerable amount of heterogeneity in the data. In part, there is some use of controlled vocabularies to keep data heterogeneity in check, say when describing the type of a resource, or the country the resource is originating from. However, when CMDI data refers to the names of persons or organisations, strings are used in a rather uncontrolled manner. Here, the CMDI community can learn from libraries and archives who maintain standardised lists for all kinds of names. In this paper, we advocate the use of freely available authority files that support the unique identification of persons, organisations, and more. The systematic use of authority records enhances the quality of the metadata, hence improves the faceted browsing experience in the VLO, and also prepares the sharing of CMDI-based metadata with the data in library catalogues.
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.
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.
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.