Computerlinguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (22)
- Book (1)
Language
- English (23)
Has Fulltext
- yes (23)
Keywords
- Korpus <Linguistik> (8)
- Computerlinguistik (5)
- Metadaten (5)
- Annotation (4)
- Deutsch (4)
- Gesprochene Sprache (4)
- Datenmanagement (3)
- Sprachdaten (3)
- API (2)
- Automatische Sprachanalyse (2)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (12)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (5)
Publisher
- European Language Resources Association (ELRA) (23) (remove)
The QUEST (QUality ESTablished) project aims at ensuring the reusability of audio-visual datasets (Wamprechtshammer et al., 2022) by devising quality criteria and curating processes. RefCo (Reference Corpora) is an initiative within QUEST in collaboration with DoReCo (Documentation Reference Corpus, Paschen et al. (2020)) focusing on language documentation projects. Previously, Aznar and Seifart (2020) introduced a set of quality criteria dedicated to documenting fieldwork corpora. Based on these criteria, we establish a semi-automatic review process for existing and work-in-progress corpora, in particular for language documentation. The goal is to improve the quality of a corpus by increasing its reusability. A central part of this process is a template for machine-readable corpus documentation and automatic data verification based on this documentation. In addition to the documentation and automatic verification, the process involves a human review and potentially results in a RefCo certification of the corpus. For each of these steps, we provide guidelines and manuals. We describe the evaluation process in detail, highlight the current limits for automatic evaluation and how the manual review is organized accordingly.
We describe a simple and efficient Java object model and application programming interface (API) for (possibly multi-modal) annotated natural language corpora. Corpora are represented as elements like Sentences, Turns, Utterances, Words, Gestures and Markables. The API allows linguists to access corpora in terms of these discourse-level elements, i.e. at a conceptual level they are familiar with, with the flexibility offered by a general purpose programming language. It is also a contribution to corpus standardization efforts because it is based on a straightforward and easily extensible data model which can serve as a target for conversion of different corpus formats.
In this paper we investigate the coverage of the two knowledge sources WordNet and Wikipedia for the task of bridging resolution. We report on an annotation experiment which yielded pairs of bridging anaphors and their antecedents in spoken multi-party dialog. Manual inspection of the two knowledge sources showed that, with some interesting exceptions, Wikipedia is superior to WordNet when it comes to the coverage of information necessary to resolve the bridging anaphors in our data set. We further describe a simple procedure for the automatic extraction of the required knowledge from Wikipedia by means of an API, and discuss some of the implications of the procedure’s performance.
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.
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.
In order to satisfy the information needs of a wide range of researchers across a number of disciplines, large textual datasets require careful design, collection, cleaning, encoding, annotation, storage, retrieval, and curation. This daunting set of tasks has coalesced into a number of key themes and questions that are of interest to the contributing research communities: (a) what sampling techniques can we apply? (b) what quality issues should we be aware of? (c) what infrastructures and frameworks are being developed for the efficient storage, annotation, analysis and retrieval of large datasets? (d) what affordances do visualisation techniques offer for the exploratory analysis approaches of corpora? (e) what legal paths can be followed in dealing with IPR and data protection issues governing both the data sources and the query results? (f) how to guarantee that corpus data remain available and usable in a sustainable way?