DOCSLIB.ORG

Etytree: a Graphical and Interactive Etymology Dictionary Based on Wiktionary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Etytree: a Graphical and Interactive Etymology Dictionary Based on Wiktionary Etytree: A Graphical and Interactive Etymology Dictionary Based on Wiktionary Ester Pantaleo Vito Walter Anelli Wikimedia Foundation grantee Politecnico di Bari Italy Italy [email protected] [email protected] Tommaso Di Noia Gilles Sérasset Politecnico di Bari Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS Italy Grenoble INP, LIG, F-38000 Grenoble, France [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT a new method1 that parses Etymology, Derived terms, De- We present etytree (from etymology + family tree): a scendants sections, the namespace for Reconstructed Terms, new on-line multilingual tool to extract and visualize et- and the etymtree template in Wiktionary. ymological relationships between words from the English With etytree, a RDF (Resource Description Framework) Wiktionary. A first version of etytree is available at http: lexical database of etymological relationships collecting all //tools.wmflabs.org/etytree/. the extracted relationships and lexical data attached to lex- With etytree users can search a word and interactively emes has also been released. The database consists of triples explore etymologically related words (ancestors, descendants, or data entities composed of subject-predicate-object where cognates) in many languages using a graphical interface. a possible statement can be (for example) a triple with a lex- The data is synchronised with the English Wiktionary dump eme as subject, a lexeme as object, and\derivesFrom"or\et- at every new release, and can be queried via SPARQL from a ymologicallyEquivalentTo" as predicate. The RDF database Virtuoso endpoint. has been exposed via a SPARQL endpoint and can be queried Etytree is the first graphical etymology dictionary, which at http://etytree-virtuoso.wmflabs.org/sparql. could be used to search specific etymological definitions as Etytree provides a graphical interface to the database well as to discover new relations among words. Moreover, it which consists in an intuitive and multilingual graphical ety- can be effectively adopted by Wiktionary editors to identify mology dictionary. The graphical etymology dictionary rep- inconsistencies or missing information in the data. resents the extracted etymological relationships as well as the associated lexical information using graphs and tooltips, respectively. It uses d3.js2, a JavaScript library for manip- Keywords ulating documents based on data, and infers the tree struc- ture from the RDF database on the fly through specific queries etymology; Wiktionary; natural language processing; d3.js from the Virtuoso3 SPARQL endpoint. With etytree, users can discover new words when they 1. INTRODUCTION search for a specific etymological definition, e.g., they can discover words that derive from the same ancestral word, Etytree is a new tool to extract and visualize etymologi- both in their own language and in other languages. This cal relationships between lexemes (or words, for simplicity) happens in an intuitive way without having to read fairly using data coming from the English Wiktionary. The in- long and complex sentences that describe etymological rela- terest of this tool lies in its potential for Wiktionary users, tionships between words and without the need to navigate editors and for researchers or more generally people inter- across multiple pages. Moreover, with the vi- ested in languages and etymologies. Wiktionary sualization of the etymological tree, editors can easily spot It is built on top of DBnary[1] which extracts word Defini- inconsistencies between etymological relationships described tions, Parts of Speech, Synonyms, and other lexical informa- across multiple Wiktionary pages. Finally, researchers can tion from Wiktionary pages. Etytree extends DBnary with use the database of etymological relationships to study ety- mologies on a large scale. Potentially, they could extend the database of etymological relationships to include semantics c 2017 International World Wide Web Conference Committee (IW3C2), or pronunciations, to study how they evolved through time published under Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 License. across etymological trees and across languages. WWW’17 Companion, April 3–7, 2017, Perth, Australia. ACM 978-1-4503-4913-0/17/04. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3038912.3038914 1The extended version of DBnary is available at https:// bitbucket.org/esterpantaleo/dbnary_etymology 2https://d3js.org/ 3 . https://virtuoso.openlinksw.com/ 1635 Figure 1: A screenshot of the interactive visualization produced by etytree for the English word \gorgeous". From the graph it is possible to see that the English words \gorgeous", \disgorge", \gorget", and archaic words \gorge" and \engorge" are etymologically related. 1636 A project similar to etytree is Etymological Wordnet4 SUPERSEDED BY7 or COGNATE TO8. [2, 3] which is, unfortunately, neither publicly available nor Also we use a pattern to match compounds, i.e., sentences maintained anymore. like ffmjenjdoorgg+ffmjenjbellgg 2. THE MODEL The etytree extraction tool uses regular expressions and or parsing of both Wiktionary templates and links. It assumes a standard structure for the different sections containing et- Compound of ffmjenjdoorgg and ffmjenjbellgg ymologies, i.e., the Etymology section, the Derived terms section, the Descendants section, the namespace with Re- Whenever we find a match to a compound pattern, we ig- constructed Terms (still in the works), the etymtree tem- nore everything after the match, as there is no standard for plate5. the etymology of compound words. While the selected patterns generally correctly reflect real 2.1 Etymology sections patterns (as Etymology sections use very well defined stan- 9 Figure 2 presents a screenshot of the Etymology section of dards ), some etymologies are written in non-standard ways, English word \gorgeous" in English Wiktionary. The same which implies that the corresponding extraction is incorrect section in the xml dump (our data source) as well as in the (or partially incorrect). We are trying to interact with the edit tab of the online English Wiktionary is: community of editors of English Wiktionary to better un- derstand the standards they use and to encourage the use ===Etymology=== of more standards that would allow the community to have From Early Modern English ffmjenjgorgiousgg, ffmjenj gor- a lower amount of data loss and a lower rate of incorrectly geousegg, from ffetyljfrmjengg ffmjfrmjgorgiasjjelegant, fashion- extracted etymological relationships. ablegg, from ffetyljfrojengg ffmjfrojgourgiasgg, ffmjfrojgorgiasjj One example of non-standard Etymology sections uses gorgeous, gaudy, flaunting, gallant, finegg, of uncertain forma- links instead of templates to represent words that are et- tion, but apparently connected with ffcogjfrojgorgiasjja gorget, ymologically related (e.g. [[door]] instead of ffmjenjdoorgg). ruffle for the neckgg, from ffetyljfrojengg ffmjfrojgorgejjbosom, This is a major problem because in Etymology sections words throatgg. See ffljenjgorgegg. Sense evolution was probably that with links often correspond to descriptive words or glossary, of \swelling of the throat or bosom due to pride, bridling up" to for example the Etymology section of \Davidsen" is: \assume an air of importance, flaunting". ===Etymology=== After inspection of many different Etymology sections we Originally a [[patronymic]] from ffsuffixjDavidjsenjlang=dagg. inferred a set of recurrent patterns that we constructed us- ing regular expressions. The most common pattern is6: and clearly\patronymic"here is not etymologically related to \Davidson". In this particular case, a standard that encour- (FROM )?(LANGUAGE LEMMA jLEMMA )(COMMA jDOT ages the use of links to the glossary for words like \patrony- jOR ) mic", i.e. [[Appendix:Glossary#patronymicjpatronymic]], (and for \ablative",\zero-grade", etc.) in Etymology sections Using this pattern plus a set of rules we extract etymo- would help automatic data extraction. logical relationships into a RDF database. In what follows we Other lexemes that usually have non-standard Etymol- present some examples of rules that we use. ogy sections are phrases. For example \until the cows come If we find a match to the pattern above with DOT or OR home" has the following Etymology section: in the last group, we ignore all the text following the match. We ignore anything after a dot (DOT) because generally Et- ===Etymology=== ymology sections start with a chain of etymological relation- Possibly from the fact that [[cattle]] let out to pasture may be ships followed by a dot and then contain some descriptive only expected to return for milking the next morning; thus, for text that is not easily parsable. We ignore anything follow- example, a party that goes on \ until the cows come home" is a ing OR (alternative etymologies) as alternative etymologies very long one. Alternatively, the phrase may have a Scottish ori- are not presented in a standard format in the English Wik- gin,<ref>See, for example, ffcite-webjtitle=Till the cows come tionary. We also ignore anything that follows a match to home jurl=http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/382900.html jarchiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160611134612/ 4www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~demelo/etymwn/ http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/382900.html j 5See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Template: archivedate=11 June 2016 jwork=Phrase Finder j accessdate=30 etymtree March 2013gg.</ref> and may derive from the fact that cattle 6 where FROM can be any of the following: in the [[w:Scottish HighlandsjHighlands]] are put out to graze
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dictionary Users Do Look up Frequent Words. a Logfile Analysis
    Erschienen in: Müller-Spitzer, Carolin (Hrsg.): Using Online Dictionaries. Berlin/ Boston: de Gruyter, 2014. (Lexicographica: Series Maior 145), S. 229-249. Alexander Koplenig, Peter Meyer, Carolin Müller-Spitzer Dictionary users do look up frequent words. A logfile analysis Abstract: In this paper, we use the 2012 log files of two German online dictionaries (Digital Dictionary of the German Language1 and the German Version of Wiktionary) and the 100,000 most frequent words in the Mannheim German Reference Corpus from 2009 to answer the question of whether dictionary users really do look up fre- quent words, first asked by de Schryver et al. (2006). By using an approach to the comparison of log files and corpus data which is completely different from that of the aforementioned authors, we provide empirical evidence that indicates - contra - ry to the results of de Schryver et al. and Verlinde/Binon (2010) - that the corpus frequency of a word can indeed be an important factor in determining what online dictionary users look up. Finally, we incorporate word dass Information readily available in Wiktionary into our analysis to improve our results considerably. Keywords: log file, frequency, corpus, headword list, monolingual dictionary, multi- lingual dictionary Alexander Koplenig: Institut für Deutsche Sprache, R 5, 6-13, 68161 Mannheim, +49-(0)621-1581- 435, [email protected] Peter Meyer: Institut für Deutsche Sprache, R 5, 6-13, 68161 Mannheim, +49-(0)621-1581-427, [email protected] Carolin Müller-Spitzer: Institut für Deutsche Sprache, R 5, 6-13, 68161 Mannheim, +49-(0)621-1581- 429, [email protected] Introduction We would like to Start this chapter by asking one of the most fundamental questions for any general lexicographical endeavour to describe the words of one (or more) language(s): which words should be included in a dictionary? At first glance, the answer seems rather simple (especially when the primary objective is to describe a language as completely as possible): it would be best to include every word in the dictionary.
    [Show full text]
  • Robust Ontology Acquisition from Machine-Readable Dictionaries
    Robust Ontology Acquisition from Machine-Readable Dictionaries Eric Nichols Francis Bond Daniel Flickinger Nara Inst. of Science and Technology NTT Communication Science Labs CSLI Nara, Japan Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Co. Stanford University [email protected] Keihanna, Japan California, U.S.A. [email protected] [email protected] Abstract Our basic approach is to parse dictionary definition sen- tences with multiple shallow and deep processors, generating In this paper, we outline the development of a semantic representations of varying specificity. The seman- system that automatically constructs ontologies by tic representation used is robust minimal recursion semantics extracting knowledge from dictionary definition (RMRS: Section 2.2). We then extract ontological relations sentences using Robust Minimal Recursion Se- using the most informative semantic representation for each mantics (RMRS), a semantic formalism that per- definition sentence. mits underspecification. We show that by com- In this paper we discuss the construction of an ontology for bining deep and shallow parsing resources through Japanese using the the Japanese Semantic Database Lexeed the common formalism of RMRS, we can extract [Kasahara et al., 2004]. The deep parser uses the Japanese ontological relations in greater quality and quan- Grammar JACY [Siegel and Bender, 2002] and the shallow tity. Our approach also has the advantages of re- parser is based on the morphological analyzer ChaSen. quiring a very small amount of rules and being We carried out two evaluations. The first gives an automat- easily adaptable to any language with RMRS re- ically obtainable measure by comparing the extracted onto- sources. logical relations by verifying the existence of the relations in exisiting WordNet [Fellbaum, 1998]and GoiTaikei [Ikehara 1 Introduction et al., 1997] ontologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Lemma Selection in Domain Specific Computational Lexica – Some Specific Problems
    Lemma selection in domain specific computational lexica – some specific problems Sussi Olsen Center for Sprogteknologi Njalsgade 80, DK-2300, Denmark Phone: +45 35 32 90 90 Fax: +45 35 32 90 89 e-mail: [email protected] URL: www.cst.dk Abstract This paper describes the lemma selection process of a Danish computational lexicon, the STO project, for domain specific language and focuses on some specific problems encountered during the lemma selection process. After a short introduction to the STO project and an explanation of why the lemmas are selected from a corpus and not chosen from existing dictionaries, the lemma selection process for domain specific language is described in detail. The purpose is to make the lemma selection process as automatic as possible but a manual examination of the final candidate lemma lists is inevitable. The lemmas found in the corpora are compared to a list of lemmas of general language, sorting out lemmas already encoded in the database. Words that have already been encoded as general language words but that are also found with another meaning and perhaps another syntactic behaviour in a specific domain should be kept on a list and the paper describes how this is done. The recognition of borrowed words the spelling of which have not been established constitutes a big problem to the automatic lemma selection process. The paper gives some examples of this problem and describes how the STO project tries to solve it. The selection of the specific domains is based on the 1. Introduction potential future applications and at present the following The Danish STO project, SprogTeknologisk Ordbase, domains have been selected, while – at least – one is still (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Multilingual Ontology Acquisition from Multiple Mrds
    Multilingual Ontology Acquisition from Multiple MRDs Eric Nichols♭, Francis Bond♮, Takaaki Tanaka♮, Sanae Fujita♮, Dan Flickinger ♯ ♭ Nara Inst. of Science and Technology ♮ NTT Communication Science Labs ♯ Stanford University Grad. School of Information Science Natural Language ResearchGroup CSLI Nara, Japan Keihanna, Japan Stanford, CA [email protected] {bond,takaaki,sanae}@cslab.kecl.ntt.co.jp [email protected] Abstract words of a language, let alone those words occur- ring in useful patterns (Amano and Kondo, 1999). In this paper, we outline the develop- Therefore it makes sense to also extract data from ment of a system that automatically con- machine readable dictionaries (MRDs). structs ontologies by extracting knowledge There is a great deal of work on the creation from dictionary definition sentences us- of ontologies from machine readable dictionaries ing Robust Minimal Recursion Semantics (a good summary is (Wilkes et al., 1996)), mainly (RMRS). Combining deep and shallow for English. Recently, there has also been inter- parsing resource through the common for- est in Japanese (Tokunaga et al., 2001; Nichols malism of RMRS allows us to extract on- et al., 2005). Most approaches use either a special- tological relations in greater quantity and ized parser or a set of regular expressions tuned quality than possible with any of the meth- to a particular dictionary, often with hundreds of ods independently. Using this method, rules. Agirre et al. (2000) extracted taxonomic we construct ontologies from two differ- relations from a Basque dictionary with high ac- ent Japanese lexicons and one English lex- curacy using Constraint Grammar together with icon.
    [Show full text]
  • Illustrative Examples in a Bilingual Decoding Dictionary: an (Un)Necessary Component
    http://lexikos.journals.ac.za Illustrative Examples in a Bilingual Decoding Dictionary: An (Un)necessary Component?* Alenka Vrbinc ([email protected]), Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia and Marjeta Vrbinc ([email protected]), Faculty of Arts, Department of English, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia Abstract: The article discusses the principles underlying the inclusion of illustrative examples in a decoding English–Slovene dictionary. The inclusion of examples in decoding bilingual diction- aries can be justified by taking into account the semantic and grammatical differences between the source and the target languages. Among the differences between the dictionary equivalent, which represents the most frequent translation of the lemma in a particular sense, and the translation of the lemma in the illustrative example, the following should be highlighted: the differences in the part of speech; context-dependent translation of the lemma in the example; the one-word equiva- lent of the example; zero equivalence; and idiomatic translation of the example. All these differ- ences are addressed and discussed in detail, together with the sample entries taken from a bilingual English–Slovene dictionary. The aim is to develop criteria for the selection of illustrative examples whose purpose is to supplement dictionary equivalent(s) in the grammatical, lexical, semantic and contextual senses. Apart from that, arguments for translating examples in the target language are put forward. The most important finding is that examples included in a bilingual decoding diction- ary should be chosen carefully and should be translated into the target language, since lexical as well as grammatical changes in the translation of examples demand not only a high level of knowl- edge of both languages, but also translation abilities.
    [Show full text]
  • And User-Related Definitions in Online Dictionaries
    S. Nielsen Centre for Lexicography, Aarhus University, Denmark FUNCTION- AND USER-RELATED DEFINITIONS IN ONLINE DICTIONARIES 1. Introduction Definitions play an important part in the use and making of dictionaries. A study of the existing literature reveals that the contributions primarily concern printed dictionaries and show that definitions are static in that only one definition should be provided for each sense of a lemma or entry word (see e.g. Jackson, 2002, 86-100; Landau, 2001, 153-189). However, online dictionaries provide lexicographers with the option of taking a more flexible and dynamic approach to lexicographic definitions in an attempt to give the best possible help to users. Online dictionaries vary in size and shape. Some contain many data, some contain few data, some are intended to be used by adults, and some are intended to be used by children. These dictionaries contain data that reflect the differences between these groups of users, not only between general competences of children and adults but also between various competences among adults. The main distinction is between general and specialised dictionaries because their intended users belong to different types of users based on user competences and user needs. Even though lexicographers are aware of this distinction, “surprisingly little has been written about the relationship between the definition and the needs and skills of those who will use it” (Atkins/Rundell, 2008, 407). Most relevant contributions addressing definitions and user competences concern specialised dictionaries, but there are no reasons why the principles discussed should not be adopted by lexicographers at large (Bergenholtz/Kauffman, 1997; Bergenholtz/Nielsen, 2002).
    [Show full text]
  • (STAAR®) Dictionary Policy
    STAAR® State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR®) Dictionary Policy Dictionaries must be available to all students taking: STAAR grades 3–8 reading tests STAAR grades 4 and 7 writing tests, including revising and editing STAAR Spanish grades 3–5 reading tests STAAR Spanish grade 4 writing test, including revising and editing STAAR English I, English II, and English III tests The following types of dictionaries are allowable: standard monolingual dictionaries in English or the language most appropriate for the student dictionary/thesaurus combinations bilingual dictionaries* (word-to-word translations; no definitions or examples) E S L dictionaries* (definition of an English word using simplified English) sign language dictionaries picture dictionary Both paper and electronic dictionaries are permitted. However, electronic dictionaries that provide access to the Internet or have photographic capabilities are NOT allowed. For electronic dictionaries that are hand-held devices, test administrators must ensure that any features that allow note taking or uploading of files have been cleared of their contents both before and after the test administration. While students are working through the tests listed above, they must have access to a dictionary. Students should use the same type of dictionary they routinely use during classroom instruction and classroom testing to the extent allowable. The school may provide dictionaries, or students may bring them from home. Dictionaries may be provided in the language that is most appropriate for the student. However, the dictionary must be commercially produced. Teacher-made or student-made dictionaries are not allowed. The minimum schools need is one dictionary for every five students testing, but the state’s recommendation is one for every three students or, optimally, one for each student.
    [Show full text]
  • Methods in Lexicography and Dictionary Research* Stefan J
    Methods in Lexicography and Dictionary Research* Stefan J. Schierholz, Department Germanistik und Komparatistik, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany ([email protected]) Abstract: Methods are used in every stage of dictionary-making and in every scientific analysis which is carried out in the field of dictionary research. This article presents some general consid- erations on methods in philosophy of science, gives an overview of many methods used in linguis- tics, in lexicography, dictionary research as well as of the areas these methods are applied in. Keywords: SCIENTIFIC METHODS, LEXICOGRAPHICAL METHODS, THEORY, META- LEXICOGRAPHY, DICTIONARY RESEARCH, PRACTICAL LEXICOGRAPHY, LEXICO- GRAPHICAL PROCESS, SYSTEMATIC DICTIONARY RESEARCH, CRITICAL DICTIONARY RESEARCH, HISTORICAL DICTIONARY RESEARCH, RESEARCH ON DICTIONARY USE Opsomming: Metodes in leksikografie en woordeboeknavorsing. Metodes word gebruik in elke fase van woordeboekmaak en in elke wetenskaplike analise wat in die woor- deboeknavorsingsveld uitgevoer word. In hierdie artikel word algemene oorwegings vir metodes in wetenskapfilosofie voorgelê, 'n oorsig word gegee van baie metodes wat in die taalkunde, leksi- kografie en woordeboeknavorsing gebruik word asook van die areas waarin hierdie metodes toe- gepas word. Sleutelwoorde: WETENSKAPLIKE METODES, LEKSIKOGRAFIESE METODES, TEORIE, METALEKSIKOGRAFIE, WOORDEBOEKNAVORSING, PRAKTIESE LEKSIKOGRAFIE, LEKSI- KOGRAFIESE PROSES, SISTEMATIESE WOORDEBOEKNAVORSING, KRITIESE WOORDE- BOEKNAVORSING, HISTORIESE WOORDEBOEKNAVORSING, NAVORSING OP WOORDE- BOEKGEBRUIK 1. Introduction In dictionary production and in scientific work which is carried out in the field of dictionary research, methods are used to reach certain results. Currently there is no comprehensive and up-to-date documentation of these particular methods in English. The article of Mann and Schierholz published in Lexico- * This article is based on the article from Mann and Schierholz published in Lexicographica 30 (2014).
    [Show full text]
  • From Monolingual to Bilingual Dictionary: the Case of Semi-Automated Lexicography on the Example of Estonian–Finnish Dictionary
    From Monolingual to Bilingual Dictionary: The Case of Semi-automated Lexicography on the Example of Estonian–Finnish Dictionary Margit Langemets1, Indrek Hein1, Tarja Heinonen2, Kristina Koppel1, Ülle Viks1 1 Institute of the Estonian Language, Roosikrantsi 6, 10119 Tallinn, Estonia 2 Institute for the Languages of Finland, Hakaniemenranta 6, 00530 Helsinki, Finland E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract We describe the semi-automated compilation of the bilingual Estonian–Finnish online dictionary. The compilation process involves different stages: (a) reusing and combining data from two different databases: the monolingual general dictionary of Estonian and the opposite bilingual dictionary (Finnish–Estonian); (b) adjusting the compilation of the entries against time; (c) bilingualizing the monolingual dictionary; (d) deciding about the directionality of the dictionary; (e) searching ways for presenting typical/good L2 usage examples for both languages; (f) achieving the understanding about the necessity of linking of different lexical resources. The lexicographers’ tasks are to edit the translation equivalent candidates (selecting and reordering) and to decide whether or not to translate the existing usage examples, i.e. is the translation justified for being too difficult for the user. The project started in 2016 and will last for 18 months due to the unpostponable date: the dictionary is meant to celebrate the 100th anniversary of both states (Finland in December 2017, Estonia in February 2018). Keywords: bilingual lexicography; corpus linguistics; usage examples; GDEX; Estonian; Finnish 1. Background The idea of compiling the new Estonian–Finnish dictionary is about 15 years old: it first arose in 2003, after the successful publication of the voluminous Finnish–Estonian dictionary, a project which benefitted from necessary and sufficient financing, adequate time (5 years) and staff (7 lexicographers), and effective management.
    [Show full text]
  • User Contributions to Online Dictionaries Andrea Abel and Christian M
    The dynamics outside the paper: User Contributions to Online Dictionaries Andrea Abel and Christian M. Meyer Electronic lexicography in the 21st century (eLex): Thinking outside the paper, Tallinn, Estonia, October 17–19, 2013. 18.10.2013 | European Academy of Bozen/Bolzano and Technische Universität Darmstadt | Andrea Abel and Christian M. Meyer | 1 Introduction Online dictionaries rely increasingly on their users and leverage methods for facilitating user contributions at basically any step of the lexicographic process. 18.10.2013 | European Academy of Bozen/Bolzano and Technische Universität Darmstadt | Andrea Abel and Christian M. Meyer | 2 Previous work . Mostly focused on specific type/dimension of user contribution . e.g., Carr (1997), Storrer (1998, 2010), Køhler Simonsen (2005), Fuertes-Olivera (2009), Melchior (2012), Lew (2011, 2013) . Ambiguous, partly overlapping terms: www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/7124863/User_contributions (02.10.2013) www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/7124863/User_contributions http:// 18.10.2013 | European Academy of Bozen/Bolzano and Technische Universität Darmstadt | Andrea Abel and Christian M. Meyer | 3 Research goals and contribution How to effectively plan the user contributions for new and established dictionaries? . Comprehensive and systematic classification is still missing . Mann (2010): analysis of 88 online dictionaries . User contributions roughly categorized as direct / indirect contributions and exchange with other dictionary users . Little detail given, since outside the scope of the analysis . We use this as a basis for our work We propose a novel classification of the different types of user contributions based on many practical examples 18.10.2013 | European Academy of Bozen/Bolzano and Technische Universität Darmstadt | Andrea Abel and Christian M.
    [Show full text]
  • A Framework for Understanding the Role of Morphology in Universal Dependency Parsing
    A Framework for Understanding the Role of Morphology in Universal Dependency Parsing Mathieu Dehouck Pascal Denis Univ. Lille, CNRS, UMR 9189 - CRIStAL Magnet Team, Inria Lille Magnet Team, Inria Lille 59650 Villeneuve d’Ascq, France 59650 Villeneuve d’Ascq, France [email protected] [email protected] Abstract as dependency parsing. Furthermore, morpholog- ically rich languages for which we hope to see a This paper presents a simple framework for real impact from those morphologically aware rep- characterizing morphological complexity and resentations, might not all rely to the same extent how it encodes syntactic information. In par- on morphology for syntax encoding. Some might ticular, we propose a new measure of morpho- syntactic complexity in terms of governor- benefit mostly from reducing data sparsity while dependent preferential attachment that ex- others, for which paradigm richness correlate with plains parsing performance. Through ex- freer word order (Comrie, 1981), will also benefit periments on dependency parsing with data from morphological information encoding. from Universal Dependencies (UD), we show that representations derived from morpholog- ical attributes deliver important parsing per- This paper aims at characterizing the role of formance improvements over standard word form embeddings when trained on the same morphology as a syntax encoding device for vari- datasets. We also show that the new morpho- ous languages. Using simple word representations, syntactic complexity measure is predictive of we measure the impact of morphological informa- the gains provided by using morphological at- tion on dependency parsing and relate it to two tributes over plain forms on parsing scores, measures of language morphological complexity: making it a tool to distinguish languages using the basic form per lemma ratio and a new measure morphology as a syntactic marker from others.
    [Show full text]
  • Wiktionary Matcher
    Wiktionary Matcher Jan Portisch1;2[0000−0001−5420−0663], Michael Hladik2[0000−0002−2204−3138], and Heiko Paulheim1[0000−0003−4386−8195] 1 Data and Web Science Group, University of Mannheim, Germany fjan, [email protected] 2 SAP SE Product Engineering Financial Services, Walldorf, Germany fjan.portisch, [email protected] Abstract. In this paper, we introduce Wiktionary Matcher, an ontology matching tool that exploits Wiktionary as external background knowl- edge source. Wiktionary is a large lexical knowledge resource that is collaboratively built online. Multiple current language versions of Wik- tionary are merged and used for monolingual ontology matching by ex- ploiting synonymy relations and for multilingual matching by exploiting the translations given in the resource. We show that Wiktionary can be used as external background knowledge source for the task of ontology matching with reasonable matching and runtime performance.3 Keywords: Ontology Matching · Ontology Alignment · External Re- sources · Background Knowledge · Wiktionary 1 Presentation of the System 1.1 State, Purpose, General Statement The Wiktionary Matcher is an element-level, label-based matcher which uses an online lexical resource, namely Wiktionary. The latter is "[a] collaborative project run by the Wikimedia Foundation to produce a free and complete dic- tionary in every language"4. The dictionary is organized similarly to Wikipedia: Everybody can contribute to the project and the content is reviewed in a com- munity process. Compared to WordNet [4], Wiktionary is significantly larger and also available in other languages than English. This matcher uses DBnary [15], an RDF version of Wiktionary that is publicly available5. The DBnary data set makes use of an extended LEMON model [11] to describe the data.
    [Show full text]