Advertisement

Introduction and Overview

  • Christian Chiarcos
  • Sebastian Hellmann
  • Sebastian Nordhoff

Abstract

The explosion of information technology in the last two decades has led to a substantial growth in quantity, diversity and complexity of web-accessible linguistic data. These resources become even more useful when linked with each other, and the last few years have seen the emergence of numerous approaches in various disciplines concerned with linguistic resources.

Keywords

Resource Description Framework Link Data Link Open Data Linguistic Resource Lexical Resource 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baader F, Horrocks I, Sattler U (2005) Description logics as ontology languages for the Semantic Web. Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning pp 228–248 Google Scholar
  2. Berners-Lee T (2006) Design issues: Linked data. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
  3. Bird S, Liberman M (2001) A formal framework for linguistic annotation. Speech Communication 33(1-2):23–60 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouda P, Cysouw M (this vol.) Treating dictionaries as a Linked-Data corpus. pp 15–23 Google Scholar
  5. Bray T, Paoli J, Sperberg-McQueen C, Maler E, Yergeau F (1997) Extensible Markup Language (XML). World Wide Web Journal 2(4):27–66 Google Scholar
  6. Burchardt A, Padó S, Spohr D, Frank A, Heid U (2008) Formalising Multi-layer Corpora in OWL/DL – Lexicon Modelling, Querying and Consistency Control. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Conference on NLP (IJCNLP 2008), Hyderabad Google Scholar
  7. Cassidy S (2010) An RDF realisation of LAF in the DADA annotation server. In: Proceedings of the 5th Joint ISO-ACL/SIGSEM Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation (ISA-5), Hong Kong Google Scholar
  8. Chiarcos C (this vol.) Interoperability of corpora and annotations. pp 161–179 Google Scholar
  9. Declerck T, Lendvai P, Mörth K, Budin G, Váradi T (this vol.) Towards Linked Language Data for Digital Humanities. pp 109–116 Google Scholar
  10. Dipper S (2005) XML-based stand-off representation and exploitation of multi-level linguistic annotation. In: Proc. Berliner XML Tage 2005 (BXML 2005), Berlin, Germany, pp 39–50 Google Scholar
  11. Dostert L (1955) The Georgetown-IBM experiment. In: Locke WN, Booth AD (eds) Machine Translation of Languages, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 124–135 Google Scholar
  12. Francis WN, Kucera H (1964) Brown Corpus manual. Manual of information to accompany A standard corpus of present-day edited American English, for use with digital computers. Tech. rep., Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, revised edition 1979 Google Scholar
  13. Goldfarb CF, Rubinsky Y (eds) (1990) The SGML handbook. Oxford University Press, New York Google Scholar
  14. Hellmann S (2010) The semantic gap of formalized meaning. In: The 7th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2010), Heraklion, Greece Google Scholar
  15. Hellmann S, Stadler C, Lehmann J (this vol.) The German DBpedia: A sense repository for linking entities. pp 181–189 Google Scholar
  16. Ide N (1998) Corpus Encoding Standard: SGML guidelines for encoding linguistic corpora. In: Proceedings of the First International Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 1998), pp 463–70 Google Scholar
  17. Ide N, Pustejovsky J (2010) What does interoperability mean, anyway? Toward an operational definition of interoperability. In: Proc. Second International Conference on Global Interoperability for Language Resources (ICGL 2010), Hong Kong, China Google Scholar
  18. Ide N, Suderman K (2007) GrAF: A graph-based format for linguistic annotations. In: Proc. Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW 2007), Prague, Czech Republic, pp 1–8 Google Scholar
  19. Lassila O, Swick RR (1999) Resource Description Framework (RDF) model and syntax specification. Tech. rep., World Wide Web Consortium Google Scholar
  20. McGuinness D, Van Harmelen F (2004) OWL Web Ontology Language overview. w3c recommendation. Tech. rep., World Wide Web Consortium Google Scholar
  21. Miles A, Bechhofer S (2009) SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System reference. W3C Recommendation. Tech. rep., World Wide Web Consortium Google Scholar
  22. Morris W (ed) (1969) The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Houghton Mifflin, New York Google Scholar
  23. Nordhoff S (this vol.) Linked Data for linguistic diversity research: Glottolog/Langdoc and ASJP. pp 191–200 Google Scholar
  24. Schalley AC (this vol.) TYTO – A collaborative research tool for linked linguistic data. pp 139–149 Google Scholar
  25. Text Encoding Initiative (1990) TEI P1 guidelines for the encoding and interchange of machine readable texts. Tech. rep., Text Encoding Initiative, draft Version 1.1 1 Google Scholar
  26. Thompson S (1955-58) Motif-index of folk-literature: A classification of narrative elements in folktales, ballads, myths, fables, medieval romances, exempla, fabliaux, jest-books, and local legends. Indiana University Press, Bloomington Google Scholar
  27. W3C OWL Working Group (2009) OWL 2 Web Ontology Language. document overview. W3C Recommendation. Tech. rep., World Wide Web Consortium Google Scholar
  28. Wilcock G (2007) An OWL ontology for HPSG. In: Proc. 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Prague, Czech Republic, pp 169–172 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Chiarcos
    • 1
  • Sebastian Hellmann
  • Sebastian Nordhoff
  1. 1.Information Sciences InstituteUniversity of Southern CaliforniaMarina del ReyUSA

Personalised recommendations