LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for TEI-L Archives


TEI-L Archives

TEI-L Archives


TEI-L@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEI-L Home

TEI-L Home

TEI-L  October 2014

TEI-L October 2014

Subject:

Re: Interchange of TEI documents: examples?

From:

Piotr Bański <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Piotr Bański <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 13 Oct 2014 19:40:04 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (153 lines)

Dear Frederik (and all),

This is an interesting exchange -- thanks.

Let me address a minor detail from your message:

 > * There is a generic @ana whose semantics are almost entirely project
 > specific.

Its semantics is merely to provide a pointer (or pointers) at another
container, in particular, this can be a dictionary entry (given that you
mentioned gramGrp).

And I believe that you meant to contrast <gramGrp> with <fs> below:

 > When I started looking into this, my first naive expectation was
 > something like <gramGrp> in <w>: The dictionary module allows to encode
 > POS, gender, number, etc., but only for dictionary entries, not text
 > words. And I must say I still find this compelling, as it would provide
 > explicit semantics instead of generic containers.

But note that the semantics of gramGrp are not that explicit at all:

* from the point of view of containers, take <gender>: is this a
reference to the sex [semantic], inflection class [lexical], or
agreement class [syntactic]? Similarly with <iType>, which is not enough
for some languages (see e.g.
http://sourceforge.net/p/tei/feature-requests/276/ )

* from the point of view of content, chaos may reign inside gramGrp
elements, whereas you can use a feature structure declaration to
restrict the content of feature values in various ways.

-- this is all just to say that <fs> is a powerful and maybe somewhat
underestimated tool. Naturally, not all projects need all this power,
and it may be enough to use @type for some subtler distinctions and
possibly ODD to define some further constraints, so please treat the
above as a side remark.

Best regards,

   Piotr


On 13/10/14 19:05, Frederik Elwert wrote:
> Am 13.10.2014 um 18:08 schrieb Serge Heiden:
>> Dear Roberto,
>>
>> Le 11/10/2014 09:23, Roberto Rosselli Del Turco a écrit :
>>> You cite a different case, that of computational linguistics
>>> annotation: as you note, there are specialized formats that would
>>> probably serve you better than converting everything in TEI XML, so I
>>> think that the strategy of providing TEI encoded texts for "general"
>>> use and a specific format for linguistic analysis makes perfect sense.
>> *"general" use versus linguistic analysis*
>> Today, it is not inconceivable to consider that NLP tools project
>> linguistic knowledge automatically inside texts with sufficiently good
>> results, such as lemma and POS linguistic annotations for example, so
>> that they are more and more used by all disciplines of the humanities -
>> say for content analysis - not only for linguistic analysis.
>> Typically, historians do content analysis on NLP based lemmatized texts
>> established by classical philologists (articulating three different
>> levels of objects and disciplines goals).
>
> Yes, I completely agree.
>
>> *"general" TEI format versus linguistic analysis specific format*
>> The gap between a "general" TEI format and a linguistic analysis
>> specific format first doesn't come from their purpose, but from the fact
>> that the later activity tipically concerns ALL the words of a given
>> text. In "general" TEI encoding, we can "generally" consider that only
>> some specific words need encoding attention.
>> The fact is that an XML text encoded at the word level for EVERY word is
>> difficult to manipulate if you have no adapted tools and user
>> interfaces. So, generally, you don't use the same tools and each tool
>> tends to prefer an efficient format. But nothing prevents those tools
>> from sharing a common or compatible format.
>> Secondly, you should consider that it is often not possible to directly
>> compute the "words" (tokenize) of a "general" TEI encoded text, because:
>> - the 'base text' can be tricky to separate from the rest of the XML
>> - some words can have a whole encoding tree inside their graphical form
>> so it can be difficult to get a "surface form" right
>> - the <choice> deus ex machina beast
>> - etc.
>> In the TXM software, we develop tokenizers by specifying which TEI
>> elements may contain 'base text' content and delimit or break word or
>> sentence linguistic levels. This must be tuned for each TEI idiom.
>
> I think this is a major point. This tuning could be an argument for
> having project specific translators of TEI into more streamlined formats
> for further processing/analysis, which then represent one,
> purpose-specific interpretation of the variety of information encoded in
> TEI.
>
> But I think one could distinguish two use cases here:
>
> * Extracting a base text for further processing/annotation
> (tokenization, tagging, etc.).
> * Representing linguistic annotation for further processing in TEI.
>
> In our project, we currently have two corpora that each pose one
> challenge: In one corpus, we have only structural information in TEI, so
> we extract a base text and add linguistic annotations using tools from
> computational linguistics. We currently use the results as one-off
> intermediate steps for further analysis and don’t store them back in
> TEI. But the MorphAdorner approach that Martin Mueller mentioned in the
> NLTK thread looks like an interesting approach.
>
> In the other corpus, we already have linguistic annotations, and we’d
> like to keep them in our TEI version. We have found a way to do so, but
> I don’t think the current ways of representing linguistic annotations is
> already very satisfactory.
>
> * There is @lemma and @lemmaRef, which work really well.
> * There is a generic @ana whose semantics are almost entirely project
> specific.
> * There is <fs> which is like a verbose version of @ana – i.e., a
> generic entry point for arbitrary data. With one exception: *If* your
> project chooses to use the ISOcat system, the datcat system allows to
> specify linguistic categories in a linked data fashion (which we do).
>
> When I started looking into this, my first naive expectation was
> something like <gramGrp> in <w>: The dictionary module allows to encode
> POS, gender, number, etc., but only for dictionary entries, not text
> words. And I must say I still find this compelling, as it would provide
> explicit semantics instead of generic containers.
>
> Best,
> Frederik
>
>
>
>> *tightening here and there*
>>> As a side note, looking at texts encoded by colleagues using the
>>> transcr module I noticed that often I would have made (almost) exactly
>>> the same choices, so that the end product looks remarkably similar.
>>> Except for some cases where there are too many different ways to do
>>> the same thing ... but I guess not everything TEI may become SIMPLE ;)
>>> (although some tightening here and there would be a good thing!).
>> Every tightening has a purpose:
>> - TEI light
>> - TEI tight
>> - Bare bones TEI
>> - TEI simple
>> What is yours?
>>
>> Best,
>> Serge
>>
>
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991
April 1991
March 1991
February 1991
January 1991
December 1990
November 1990
October 1990
September 1990
August 1990
July 1990
June 1990
April 1990
March 1990
February 1990
January 1990

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager