OnLiT: An Ontology for Linguistic Terminology

  • Bettina Klimek
  • John P. McCrae
  • Christian Lehmann
  • Christian Chiarcos
  • Sebastian Hellmann
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10318)

Abstract

Understanding the differences underlying the scope, usage and content of language data requires the provision of a clarifying terminological basis which is integrated in the metadata describing a particular language resource. While terminological resources such as the SIL Glossary of Linguistic Terms, ISOcat or the GOLD ontology provide a considerable amount of linguistic terms, their practical usage is limited to a look up of a defined term whose relation to other terms is unspecified or insufficient. Therefore, in this paper we propose an ontology for linguistic terminology, called OnLiT. It is a data model which can be used to represent linguistic terms and concepts in a semantically interrelated data structure and, thus, overcomes prevalent isolating definition-based term descriptions. OnLiT is based on the LiDo Glossary of Linguistic Terms and enables the creation of RDF datasets, that represent linguistic terms and their meanings within the whole or a subdomain of linguistics.

Keywords

Linguistic terminology Linguistic linked data LiDo database 

References

  1. Bußmann, H., Trauth, G., Kazzazi, K.: Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft. Taylor & Francis, London (1996)Google Scholar
  2. Farrar, S.: General Ontology for Linguistic Description (GOLD). The LINGUIST List, Department of Linguistics, Indiana University (2010)Google Scholar
  3. Farrar, S., Langendoen, D.T.: A linguistic ontology for the semantic web. GLOT Int. 7, 97–100 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. Farrar, S., Lewis, W.D.: The gold community of practice: an infrastructure for linguistic data on the web. Lang. Resour. Eval. 41, 45–60 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goecke, D., Lüngen, H., Sasaki, F., Witt, A., Farrar, S.: GOLD and discourse: domain-and community-specific extensions. In: Proceedings of the 2005 E-MELD-Workshop (2005)Google Scholar
  6. Good, J., Cysouw, M., Albu, M., Bibiko, H.J.: Can GOLD “cope” with WALS? Retrofitting an ontology onto the world atlas of language structures. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (2005)Google Scholar
  7. Kamlah, W., Lorenzen, P.: Logische Propädeutik oder Vorschule des vernünftigen Redens. Bibliographisches Institut (B.I.-Hochschultaschenbücher 227/227a), Mannheim (1967)Google Scholar
  8. Kemps-Snijders, M., Windhouwer, M., Wittenburg, P., Wright, S.E.: Isocat: remodelling metadata for language resources. Int. J. Metadata Semant. Ontol. 4, 261–276 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lehmann, C.: Um sistema de documentação para a lingüística. Instituto de Letras e Artes, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do RGS (1976)Google Scholar
  10. Lehmann, C.: Linguistische Terminologie als relationales Netz. In: Knobloch, C., Schaeder, B. (eds.) Nomination-fachsprachlich und gemeinsprachlich, pp. 215–267. Springer, Wiesbaden (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Loos, E.E., Anderson, S., Day, D.H., Jordan, P.C., Wingate, J.D.: Glossary of Linguistic Terms, vol. 29. SIL International, Dallas (2004)Google Scholar
  12. Schuurman, I., Windhouwer, M., Ohren, O., Zeman, D.: CLARIN concept registry: the new semantic registry. In: Selected Papers from the CLARIN Annual Conference 2015, pp. 62–79. Linköping University Electronic Press (2016)Google Scholar
  13. Wilcock, G.: An OWL ontology for HPSG. In: Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the ACL on Interactive Poster and Demonstration Sessions, pp. 169–172. Association for Computational Linguistics (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.InfAIUniversity of LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Insight Centre for Data AnalyticsNational University of Ireland GalwayGalwayIreland
  3. 3.University of ErfurtErfurtGermany
  4. 4.Applied Computational LinguisticsGoethe-University FrankfurtFrankfurtGermany

Personalised recommendations