Session6 04.giuseppe celano
1 like125 views
This document discusses the standoff annotation methodology for the Ancient Greek and Latin Dependency Treebank, outlining revisions and standardizations for improved annotation accuracy. It highlights the advantages and disadvantages of inline versus standoff annotation, as well as challenges in text extraction and tokenization. The document emphasizes the structure and components of the annotation system, including references to various texts and case studies in classical literature.
Session6 04.giuseppe celano
- 1. STANDOFF ANNOTATION FOR THE ANCIENT GREEK AND LATIN DEPENDENCY TREEBANK DATECH2019, 9.5.2019 Giuseppe G. A. Celano
- 2. DFG PROJECT 1. Revise: correct the errors 2. Standardize: make the AGLDT standoff as PAULA XML (and convert into UD) 1. standoff for multiple annotations and/or multiple interpretations of the same token 2. standoff to overcome the problem of conflicting hierarchies 3. Expand: add new annotations (https://git.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/celano/agldt1)
- 3. THE AGLT ▸ Ancient Greek texts: 557,922 tokens ▸ Latin texts: 79,697 tokens ▸ available in GitHub/GitLab: ▸ https://perseusdl.github.io/treebank_data/ ▸ https://git.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/celano/agldt1
- 4. LABELED DIRECTED ACYCLIC GRAPHS
- 5. THE PERSEUS TREEBANK (LAST RELEASE, 2.1) ▸ 12 texts composition date text token number 63 BC Cicero, In Catilinam 6,652 51 BC Caesar, De Bello Gallico 1556 post 44 BC Sallust, Bellum Catilinae 13191 ca 25 BC Prop. Elegiae 5297 29-19 BC Vergil, Aeneid 2839 ca 8 AD Ov., Metamorphoses 5209 14 AD Aug., Res Gestae 3035 15-50 AD Ph., Fabulae 6588 ca 100 AD? Petr., Satyricon 14177 ca 100-110 AD Tac. Historiae 3531 117-138 AD Suet., Vita Divi Augusti 8313 ca 400 AD Ger. Vulgata 9309
- 6. TREEBANK PIPELINE start Choose a TEI/XML text preliminary automatic annotation tokenize it rule-based POS Tagger/Parser manual correction end
- 7. THE PERSEUS TREEBANK: TEI XML TEXT
- 8. THE PERSEUS TREEBANK: INLINE ANNOTATION
- 9. INLINE ANNOTATION: ADVANTAGES 1. easy to add 2. easy to query 3. well supported by annotation tools
- 10. INLINE ANNOTATION: DISADVANTAGES 1. the tokenized text becomes the new base text 2. after text extraction from a TEI text, links to the original text is virtually lost (e.g., amabam-que and content of some editorial markup) 3. it is unfeasible to connect such base texts to other annotation layers with different tokenization schemes. For example: ‣ amabamque: one phonetic word ‣ amabam-que: two syntactic words ‣ am-a-ba-m-que: five morphemes ‣ verse vs. sentence
- 11. STANDOFF ANNOTATION 1. each annotation layer is attached separately to the original text (i.e., the base text). 2. an annotation layer references the original text or another annotaion layer which references the original text
- 12. STANDOFF ANNOTATION: PAULA XML 1. Open format based on the principles of LAF (ISO 24612:2012) 2. already employed in a number of historical language corpora 3. the base text is a bare xml text, which is virtually referenced only via offsets
- 13. THE CASE STUDY: CAESAR’S DE BELLO CIVILI 1. the base text is a ‘complex’ TEI xml file’ ‣ reference is made via XPath coinciding with CTS divisions (https://git.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/celano/latinnlp/tree/master/case-study))
- 14. TOKENIZATION/WORD SEGMENTATION ▸ Latin: rule-based ▸ select the text to annotate from the TEI XML file ▸ identify abbreviations (word list + regular expressions) ▸ Cn. = Gnaeus ▸ list of not-to-tokenize words (e.g., Antigone, aeque) ▸ tokens ending with ne/que/ve ▸ list of to-tokenize words (e.g., nequis, nobiscum)
- 15. PAULA: TEI BASE TEXT
- 18. CURRENT CHALLENGES ▸ extraction of text from TEI texts may require different scripts ▸ what is the ideal tokenization/word segmentation? ▸ annotation tools do not support standoff annotation ▸ lack of support for XPointer
- 19. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!