Exploring data models for heterogenous dialect data: the case of explore.bread.AT!
1 like208 views
The document discusses representing heterogeneous dialect data from the DBÖ collection in a standardized way. It considers using XML-based standards like TEI to encode the data onomasiologically rather than just semasiologically. Two options - modifying TEI's <entryFree> element or using a TBX-TEI hybrid - are presented but have problems in fully and legitimately representing the data. The conclusion is that TEI needs a dedicated means of encoding onomasiological entries with an appropriate set of elements and attributes to fully capture the lexical information.
Exploring data models for heterogenous dialect data: the case of explore.bread.AT!
- 1. Jack T. Bowers Melanie Seltmann Austrian Academy of Sciences -Austrian Center for Digital Humanities Exploring data models for heterogenous dialect data: the case of explore.bread.AT!
- 2. Outline of Presentation Part I: Overview of project & data Part II: Overview of possible solutions using XML-based markup standards for representing onomasiological dialectal language
- 3. explore.AT! Overview: • DBÖ: collection of Bavarian dialectal speech began 1911 • 2015-2016 converted from TUSTEP to TEI Goals • Gain cultural and linguistic insights into Bavarian dialects in former Austro-Hungarian empire; • Update and improve the existing body of resources by converting to conform with standards and best practice (ISOcat, ISOconcept, etc.; • Enhance usability and compatibility of data in order to share with project partners; • Integration of semantic web/LOD resources;
- 4. Project Overview: Datasets DBÖ@TEI WBÖ@TEI BaseX Database place inventory (TEI-listPlace) concept inventory(TEI-feature structures) gram features inventory (TEI-feature structures) questionnaires (TEI-list) DBÖ@ema SQL BaseX Database Extracted Topical Datasets explore.bread The language of Color lexicon(location(a)) inventory(lexicalFeature(a)) • Domain/Topic-based (exploreBread) • Location • Lexical/grammatical features Possible basis for examination of sub-datasets
- 6. DBÖ Questionnaires Questionnaires: While questionnaires are topical in general, they are a complicated mixture of semasiological (term-based) and onomasiological (concept-based) e.g. (31B5) bes. Weißgebäcke: länglich flaches, gerundetes Weißgebäck, z.B. Strutz (l.!), Strutzen, Strützel, Wecken u.a.; scherzhafte Bez. wie Schendarm Current means of extracting this information were initially limited to: • Questionnaires • String searches in certain data fields Dataset requires significant manual editing and curation due to nature of the questionnaires
- 7. Desired Enhancements In most sub-topical studies such as ExploreBread! there would be potential benefits of having the ability to format data onomasiologically, for example: • Domain and/or concept-oriented entries better represent the content of interest • Information retrieval • Ontology mapping • Etymological &/or Morphosyntactic analysis • Cross linguistic (or dialectal) comparisson or translation Problem: > TEI has no explicitly designated means of encoding onomasiological data!
- 8. Enhancing original data • Adding domain (onomasiological) and ontology-based sense tags <sense corresp=“concept:Weißgebäck”>Weißgebäck</usg> <usg type="dom" corresp=“concept:Brot”>Brot</usg> • Normalization of phonetic notation* <form type="lautung" n="1"> <pron notation="tustep">>str-uts</pron> <pron notation="ipa" resp="#JB" change=“01.2">ʒ̊truːts</pron> </form> • Adding Morpholgical/Compositional Analysis* <form type="hauptlemma"> <orth>(S:emmel)zipfel</orth> </form> <form type="hauptlemma" resp="#MS"> <orth>(<seg corresp="concept:Semmel”>S:emm<seg ana="#dimin">el</seg></seg>) <seg ana="#stem" corresp="concept:Zipf”>zipf<seg ana="#dimin">el</seg></seg> </orth> </form>
- 9. Lexical Organization Semasiological: Onomasiological: Semasiological Lexical Model meaning(iii) Form meaning(ii)meaning(i) Onomasiological Lexical Model Concept Form(i) Form(ii) Form(iii) Starting point is word form and identifies associated meanings and senses Starting point is a concept and looks at forms used to represent it
- 10. Headword Lemma(i..n) BROT brot broet brɛot Prôt Prôt Prôt Core DBÖ entry datatypes —————————————- Archive record Headword (Form) POS Dialect lemma (Form) Gram info Meaning (Sense) Usage example Source Place Questionnaire Etymology Desired Data Structure Desired Onomasiological Model for Extracted Terminological DBÖ Datasets TermEntry Concept(a) DialectEntry(i) DialectEntry(ii) DialectEntry(n)
- 11. Options using XML-Based Standards (i) TEI Hacks: Alternate TEI Dictionary format (<entryFree>) (ii) TEI-TBX Hybrid (Romary, 2014) OR…. use TEI P4
- 12. TEI <entryFree> Model (1…n) <sense @corresp/> <entryFree @xml:id> <usg @type=“dom”> <superEntry> <entry @xml:id @xml:lang=“bar”> (0…n) (1…n) <form type=“hauptlemma”> <orth> (1…n) (1…1) <form type=“hauptlemma”> (all other elements content from original copied without alteration) <def @xml:lang> (0…n) <sense> concept: meaning concept: domain Form (headword(i)) Form (dialect(a)) Metadata: DBÖ entry (headword (i)) Form (headword(ii)) Form (dialect(b)) Metadata: DBÖ entry (headword (ii))
- 13. TEI <entryFree> Model concept: meaning <entryFree> <sense corresp="concept:Wecken"> <usg type="dom" corresp="concept:Brot">Brot</usg> <def xml:lang="en" resp="#JB">Oblong loaf of bread</def> </sense> <superEntry> <!—for each unique hauptlemma for concept entry —> <form type="hauptlemma"> <orth>Wecken</orth> </form> <entry xml:id="w834_qdb-d1e602b" xml:lang="bar"> <!-- hauptlemma removed from here; entry content abbreviated --> <form type="lautung" n="1"> <pron notation="tustep">W.eiggn</pron> <pron notation="ipa" resp="#JB" change=“01.2">ʋɛiggn̩</pron> </form> <usg type="geo"> <placeName>St.Michael/B. Bgl.</placeName> </usg> </entry> <!—all entries with headword “Wecken” (ii..n) —> </superEntry> <superEntry> <form type="hauptlemma"> <orth>Strutzen</orth> </form> <entry xml:id="s806_qdb-d1e43847b" xml:lang="bar"> <!-- hauptlemma removed from here; entry content abbreviated --> <form type="lautung" n="1"> <pron notation="tustep">Struzn</pron> <pron notation="ipa" resp="#JB" change=“01.2">ʃtruzn̩</pron> </form> <usg type="geo"> <placeName>Rohrb. OÖ</placeName> </usg> </entry> <!—all entries with headword “Strutzen” (ii..n) —> </superEntry> </entryFree> concept: domain Form (headword(i)) Form (dialect(a)) Metadata: DBÖ entry (headword (i)) Form (headword(ii)) Form (dialect(b)) Metadata: DBÖ entry (headword (ii))
- 14. Problems with <entryFree> model • It is a hack! • Current TEI guidelines and data model are inherantly and intentionallly semasiological and this use of the vocabulary is only valid by chance, not intention. >Thus using this data model within the TEI will not have any of the advantages that generally come with its use
- 15. TBX-TEI Hybrid Romary (2014): Makes attempt at customizing TEI guidelines to incorporate TBX (ISO 30046) terminological entries in order to provide TEI with an onomasiological model https://github.com/laurentromary/TBXinTEI
- 16. TBX-TEI Hybrid <tbx:termEntry xmlns="http://www.tbx.org"><!-- @xml:id; --> <descrip type="concept" target="concept:Wecken"/> <!-- sense not normally included in TBX! --> <descrip type="domain" target="concept:Brot" xml:lang="de">Brot</descrip> <descrip type="definition" xml:lang="en">Oblong loaf of bread</descrip> <!-- no headword form may occur outside of <langSet>—> <langSet xml:id="w834_qdb-d1e602" xml:lang="bar-x-smichael"><!-- language/dialect i) @xml:id; --> <!-- No sense allowed! —> <tei:note type="anmerkung" resp="O" corresp="#BD">deren Grundriß ein Oval ist</tei:note> <!-- @corresp allowed in TEI <note> but not here —> <!-- Most metadata element valid using <tei:ref> but syntactically required to occur before <tig> —> <admin type="geo"> <tei:placeName>St.Michael/B. Bgl.</tei:placeName> </admin> <tig><!-- <tei:form> would be better --> <tei:term type="hauptlemma">Wecken</tei:term> <termNote type="transcription">orth</termNote><!-- this is inefficient: need to allow <orth> & <pron>—> <termNote type="pos">Subst</termNote><!-- this actually should be applicable to all forms (headword & lemmas) --> </tig> <tig> <tei:term type="lautung" n="1">W.eiggn</tei:term> <termNote type="transcription">pron</termNote> <termNote type="notation">tustep</termNote><!-- we also need to allow @notation --> </tig> <tig><!-- TBX doesn't allow multiple instances of <term> in same <tig> as TEI does with <orth>,<pron> w/in <form> --> <tei:term type="lautung" n="1" resp="#JB">ʋɛiggn̩</tei:term> <termNote type="transcription" change=“1.2">pron</termNote><!-- @change in original not allowed in hybrid schema --> <termNote type="notation">ipa</termNote> </tig> </langSet> ….
- 17. Problems with TEI-TBX Hybrid model as per the ODD Schema from Romary (2014) • <tig> is verbose and would be better replaced with <form> • the order of occurence of elements is too restricted • TBX-dominated schema lacks way too many attributes (e.g. @notation),and elements (e.g. <orth> <pron>) that are key to storage and representation of lexical data as used in TEI
- 18. Conclusion (i) TEI lacks a legitimate means of encoding terminological/ onomasiological entries; (ii) Given that we need to include sense (or a parallel equivalent) and the headword at the top of an entry, a TBX-TEI hybrid doesn’t work either without serious modification via ODD mostly to introduce elements and features from TEI, and stretching the traditional usage of the system; (iii) TEI needs to re-introduce a means of onomasiological data representation (such as <termEntry>) but with an expanded set of elements and attributes based on the degree of expressivity in the Dictionary module