Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Models to represent linguistic linked data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2018

J. BOSQUE-GIL
Affiliation:
Ontology Engineering Group, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain e-mails: jbosque@fi.upm.es, emontiel@fi.upm.es, asun@fi.upm.es
J. GRACIA
Affiliation:
Ontology Engineering Group, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain e-mails: jbosque@fi.upm.es, emontiel@fi.upm.es, asun@fi.upm.es Aragon Institute of Engineering Research (I3A), University of Zaragoza, Spain e-mail: jogracia@unizar.es
E. MONTIEL-PONSODA
Affiliation:
Ontology Engineering Group, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain e-mails: jbosque@fi.upm.es, emontiel@fi.upm.es, asun@fi.upm.es
A. GÓMEZ-PÉREZ
Affiliation:
Ontology Engineering Group, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain e-mails: jbosque@fi.upm.es, emontiel@fi.upm.es, asun@fi.upm.es

Abstract

As the interest of the Semantic Web and computational linguistics communities in linguistic linked data (LLD) keeps increasing and the number of contributions that dwell on LLD rapidly grows, scholars (and linguists in particular) interested in the development of LLD resources sometimes find it difficult to determine which mechanism is suitable for their needs and which challenges have already been addressed. This review seeks to present the state of the art on the models, ontologies and their extensions to represent language resources as LLD by focusing on the nature of the linguistic content they aim to encode. Four basic groups of models are distinguished in this work: models to represent the main elements of lexical resources (group 1), vocabularies developed as extensions to models in group 1 and ontologies that provide more granularity on specific levels of linguistic analysis (group 2), catalogues of linguistic data categories (group 3) and other models such as corpora models or service-oriented ones (group 4). Contributions encompassed in these four groups are described, highlighting their reuse by the community and the modelling challenges that are still to be faced.

Type
Survey Paper
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

*We are very grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their meticulous reading of the survey and for providing us with numerous insightful and constructive suggestions to improve it. We would also like to thank Dr Guadalupe Aguado-de-Cea for her help in proofreading this manuscript. This work is supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports through the Formación del Profesorado Universitario (FPU) program, and by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness through the project 4V (TIN2013-46238-C4-2-R) within the FEDER funding scheme, the Juan de la Cierva program, and the Excellence Network ReTeLe (TIN2015-68955-REDT).

References

Abromeit, F., and Fäth, C. 2016. Linking the tower of babel: modelling a massive set of etymological dictionaries as RDF. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics: Managing, Building and Using Linked Language Resources (LDL 2016). Web. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/62c1/53cd0ee24f40c7db9060dc064a489e54e480.pdfGoogle Scholar
Alexiev, V., and Casamayor, G. 2016. FN goes NIF: integrating FrameNet in the NLP interchange format. In Proceedings of the LDL 5th Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics: Managing, Building and Using Linked Language Resources, pp. 1–10. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/62c1/53cd0ee24f40c7db9060dc064a489e54e480.pdfGoogle Scholar
Anjomshoaa, A., Kiesling, E., Tuan, D. T., Lam, D. B., Wetz, P., and Tjoa, A. M. 2014. Leveraging the web of data via linked widgets. Journal of Service Science Research 6 (1): 727. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12927-014-0001-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., and Lassila, O. 2001. The semantic web. Scientific American 284 (5): 3443. Web. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26059207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bizer, C., Heath, T., and Berners-Lee, T. 2009. Linked data—the story so far. Semantic services, interoperability and web applications: emerging concepts. doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-593-3.ch008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, F., Vossen, P., McCrae, J. P., and Fellbaum, C. 2016. Cili: the Collaborative Interlingual Index. In Proceedings of the Global WordNet Conference, Bucharest, Romania, pp. 50–57. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Global WordNet Association.Google Scholar
Borin, L., Dannells, D., Forsberg, M., and McCrae, J. P., 2014. Representing Swedish lexical resources in RDF with lemon. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Posters and Demonstrations Track (ISWC-PD’14), Riva del Garda, Italy, vol. 1272, pp. 329332. Aachen, Germany: CEUR-WS, pp. 205–227.Google Scholar
Bosque-Gil, J., Gracia, J., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., and Aguado-de-Cea, G. 2016. Modelling multilingual lexicographic resources for the web of data: the K dictionaries case. In Proceedings of the GLOBALEX Lexicographic Resources for Human Language Technology Workshop Programme. http://ailab.ijs.si/globalex/files/2016/06/LREC2016Workshop-GLOBALEX_Proceedings-v2.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bosque-Gil, J., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Gracia, J., and Aguado-de-Cea, G. 2016. Terminoteca RDF: a gathering point for multilingual terminologies in Spain. In Proceedings of TKE 2016 the 12th International conference on Terminology and Knowledge Engineering, pp. 136–146. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School, pp. 65–72. http://hdl.handle.net/10398/9323.Google Scholar
Buitelaar, P., et al. 2006. LingInfo: design and applications of a model for the integration of linguistic information in ontologies. In Proceedings of the OntoLex Workshop at Language Resources and Evaluation Conference 2006. Genoa, Italy: o. A, pp. 28–32. http://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/download/2497539/2525178.Google Scholar
Buitelaar, P., Arcan, M., Iglesias~Fernández, C. A., Sánchez~Rada, J. F., and Strapparava, C. 2013. Linguistic linked data for sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics (LDL-2013), pp. 1–8, Pisa, Italy. Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics. http://aclweb.org/anthology/W13-55.Google Scholar
Chiarcos, C. 2012. POWLA: modeling linguistic corpora in OWL/DL. In Presutti, V. (ed.), The Semantic Web: Research and Applications (ESWC 2012). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7295, pp. 225239. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiarcos, C. 2014. Towards interoperable discourse annotation. Discourse features in the ontologies of linguistic annotation. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14), Reykjavik, Iceland. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2014/pdf/893_Paper.pdfGoogle Scholar
Chiarcos, C., and Erjavec, T. 2011. OWL/DL formalization of the MULTEXT-East morphosyntactic specifications. In Proceedings of the 5th Linguistic Annotation Workshop, pp. 11–20. Portland, Oregon. Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Chiarcos, C., Hellmann, S., and Nordhoff, S. 2012a. The open linguistics working group of the open knowledge foundation. In Chiarcos, C., Nordhoff, S. and Hellmann, S. (ed.), Linked Data in Linguistics, pp. 153160. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiarcos, C., Hellmann, S., and Nordhoff, S. 2012b. Linking linguistic resources: examples from the open linguistics working group. In Chiarcos, C., Nordhoff, S. and Hellmann, S. (ed.), Linked Data in Linguistics, pp. 201216. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiarcos, C., McCrae, J., Cimiano, P., and Fellbaum, C. 2013. Towards open data for linguistics: linguistic linked data. In New Trends of Research in Ontologies and Lexical Resources, pp. 725. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiarcos, C., Nordhoff, S., and Hellmann, S. (eds.), 2012c. Linked Data in Linguistics: Representing and Connecting Language Data and Language Metadata. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiarcos, C., and Sukhareva, M. 2014. Linking etymological databases. A case study in Germanic. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics: Multilingual Knowledge Resources and Natural Language Processing (LDL-2014), pp. 41–49. Stroudsburg, PA, US: Association for Computational Linguistics. http://toc.proceedings.com/28686webtoc.pdfGoogle Scholar
Chiarcos, C., and Sukhareva, M. 2015. OLiA – ontologies of linguistic annotation. Semantic Web 6 (4): 379386. http://semantic-web-journal.net/content/olia-%E2%80%93-ontologies-linguistic-annotation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiarcos, C., Fäth, C., Renner-Westermann, H., Abromeit, F., and Dimitrova, V. 2016a. Lin ∣ gu ∣ is ∣ tik: building the Linguist’s pathway to bibliographies, libraries, language resources and linked open data. In Proceedings of the 10th edition of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC), pp. 4463–4471, Portoroz, Slovenia. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Chiarcos, C., Fäth, C., and Sukhareva, M. 2016b. Developing and using the ontologies of linguistic annotation (2006–2016). In Proceedings of the LDL 5th Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics: Managing, Building and Using Linked Language Resources. http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/62c1/53cd0ee24f40c7db9060dc064a489e54e480.pdfGoogle Scholar
Cimiano, P., Buitelaar, P., McCrae, J., and Sintek, M. 2011. LexInfo: a declarative model for the lexicon-ontology interface. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 9 (1): 2951. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570826810000892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cimiano, P., Haase, P., Herold, M., Mantel, M., and Buitelaar, P. 2007. LexOnto: a model for ontology lexicons for ontology-based NLP. In Proceedings of the OntoLex07 Workshop, vol. 7. Busan, South Korea. http://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/download/2497432/2524813Google Scholar
Cimiano, P., McCrae, J. P., Rodríguez-Doncel, V., Gornostay, T., Gómez-Pérez, A., Siemoneit, B., and Lagzdins, A. 2015. Linked terminologies: applying linked data principles to terminological resources. In Proceedings of the eLex 2015 Conference, pp. 504–517, 11–13 August 2015, Herstmonceux Castle, U. K. Ljubljana/Brighton: Trojina, Institute for Applied Slovene Studies/Lexical Computing Ltd.Google Scholar
Corcho, O., Fernández-López, M., and Gómez-Pérez, A. 2003. Methodologies, tools and languages for building ontologies. Where is their meeting point?. Data and Knowledge Engineering 46 (1): 4164. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169023X02001957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corcoglioniti, F., Rospocher, M., Aprosio, A. P., and Tonelli, S. 2016. PreMOn: a lemon extension for exposing predicate models as Linked Data. In Proceedings of the 10th edition of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC), pp. 877–884. Portoroz, Slovenia. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Crystal, D., 1971. Linguistics. Baltimore: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Declerck, T. 2006. SynAF: towards a standard for syntactic annotation. In Proceedings of the 5th edition of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC), pp. 229–232. Genoa, Italy: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Declerck, T., and Krieger, H. U. 2014. Harmonization of German lexical resources for opinion mining. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14), pp. 3872–3876. Reykjavik, Iceland. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Declerck, T., Lendvai, P., Mörth, K., Budin, G., and Váradi, T. 2012. Towards linked language data for digital humanities. In Chiarcos, C., Nordhoff, S. and Hellmann, S. (ed.), Linked Data in Linguistics, pp. 109116. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, T., and Mörth, K. 2016. Towards a sense-based access to related online lexical resources. In Proceedings of the XVII EURALEX International Congress, pp. 660–667. Tbilisi, Georgia: Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University.Google Scholar
Declerck, T., Wandl-Vogt, E., and Mörth, K. 2015. Towards a pan European lexicography by means of linked (open) data. In Proceedings of the Electronic Lexicography in the 21st Century: Linking Lexical Data in the Digital Age. Proceedings of the eLex 2015 conference, pp. 342–355. Ljubljana/Brighton: Trojina, Institute for Applied Slovene Studies/Lexical Computing Ltd.Google Scholar
de la Clergerie, E., and Clément, L. 2005. MAF: a morphosyntactic annotation framework. In Vetulani, Z. (ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd Language & Technology Conference (LTC’05), pp. 90–99. Warsaw, Poland: De Gruyter Open.Google Scholar
Del Gratta, R., Frontini, F., Khan, F., and Monachini, M. 2015. Converting the parole simple clips lexicon into RDF with lemon. Semantic Web 6 (4): 387392. Web. http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/converting-parole-simple-clips-lexicon-rdf-lemon-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Melo, G. 2015. Lexvo. org: language-related information for the linguistic linked data cloud. Semantic Web 6 (4): 393400. http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/lexvoorg-language-related-information-linguistic-linked-data-cloud-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desipri, E., Gavrilidou, M., Labropoulou, P., Piperidis, S., Frontini, F., Monachini, M., Arranz, V., Mapelli, V., Francopoulo, G., and Declerck, T. 2012. Documentation and user manual of the META-SHARE metadata model. Labropoulou and E. Desipri. http://www.meta-net.eu/public_documents/t4me/META-NET-D7.2.4-Final.pdf.Google Scholar
Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., and Sutton, A., 2005. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 10 (1): 4553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dyba, T., Dingsoyr, T., and Hanssen, G. K. 2007. Applying systematic reviews to diverse study types: An experience report. In Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2007). IEEE. Web. http://doi.org/10.1109/ESEM.2007.59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckle-Kohler, J., McCrae, J. P., and Chiarcos, C. 2015. lemonUby – A large, interlinked, syntactically-rich lexical resource for ontologies. Semantic Web 6 (4): 371378. http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/lemonuby-large-interlinked-syntactically-rich-lexical-resource-ontologies-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrmann, M., Cecconi, F., Vannella, D., McCrae, J. P., Cimiano, P., and Navigli, R., 2014. Representing multilingual data as linked data: the case of BabelNet 2.0. In Proceedings of the 9th edition of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2014), Reykjavik, Iceland. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA), pp. 401408.Google Scholar
El Maarouf, I., Alferov, E., Cooper, D., Fang, Z., Mousselly-Sergieh, H., and Wang, H. 2015. The GuanXi network: a new multilingual LLOD for Language Learning applications. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Natural Language Processing and Linked Open Data, Hissar, Bulgaria, pp. 42–51. Shoumen, Bulgaria: INCOMA Ltd.Google Scholar
El Maarouf, I., Bradbury, J., and Hanks, P. 2014. PDEV-lemon: a Linked Data implementation of the pattern dictionary of english verbs based on the lemon model. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics (LDL), pp. 88–93. Reykjavik, Iceland. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Falk, I., and Stein, A. 2016. LVF-lemon – towards a linked data representation of ‘Les Verbes français’. In Proceedings of the 10th edition of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC), pp. 2401–2406. Portoroz, Slovenia. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Farrar, S., and Langendoen, D. T., 2003. A linguistic ontology for the semantic web. GLOT International 7 (3): 97100.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C., 1998. WordNet. Hoboken, New Jersey, US: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C. 2005. WordNet and wordnets. In Brown, K. et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed., pp. 665670. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Flati, T., and Navigli, R. 2013. Three birds (in the LLOD cloud) with one stone: BabelNet, Babelfy and the Wikipedia Bitaxonomy. In Proceedings of SEMANTiCS, pp. 10–13. Leipzig, Germany, September 4–5. CEUR-WS.org. Web. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1224/paper3.pdf.Google Scholar
Fonseca, A., Sadat, F., and Lareau, F. 2016. Lexfom: a lexical functions ontology model. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of the Lexicon (CogALex - V), pp. 145–155. Osaka, Japan: The COLING 2016 Organizing Committee.Google Scholar
Forkel, R. 2014. The cross-linguistic linked data project. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics (LDL), pp. 60–66. Reykjavik, Iceland. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Francopoulo, G., George, M., Calzolari, N., Monachini, M., Bel, N., Pet, M., and Soria, C. 2006. Lexical Markup Framework (LMF). In Proceedings of the 5th edition of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC), pp. 233–236. Genoa, Italy. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A., and Schneider, L. 2002. Sweetening ontologies with DOLCE. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, pp. 166–181. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Gómez-Pérez, A., Vila-Suero, D., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Gracia, J., and Aguado-de-Cea, G. 2013. Guidelines for multilingual linked data. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and Semantics, pp. 3–12. Madrid, Spain. New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Agirre, A., Laparra, E., and Rigau, G. 2012. Multilingual central repository version 3.0. In Proceedings of the 8th edition of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC), pp. 2525–2529. Istanbul, Turkey. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
González-Blanco, E., del Rio, G., and Martínez~Cantón, C. 2016. Linked open data to represent multilingual poetry collections. A proposal to solve interoperability issues between poetic repertoires. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics. Portoroz, Slovenia. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Good, J., and Hendryx-Parker, C. 2006. Modeling contested categorization in linguistic databases. In Proceedings of the EMELD Workshop on Digital Language Documentation: Tools and Standards: The State of the Art. Lansing, Michigan. Wayne State University, Eastern Michigan University. Web. http://emeld.org/workshop/2006/papers/GoodHendryxParker-Modelling.pdf.Google Scholar
Gracia, J., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Cimiano, P., Gómez-Pérez, A., Buitelaar, P., and McCrae, J. 2012a. Challenges for the multilingual web of data. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 11: 6371. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570826811000783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gracia, J., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., and Gómez-Pérez, A. 2012b. Cross-lingual linking on the multilingual web of data (position statement). In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Multilingual Semantic Web, vol. 936, pp. 41–45. Aachen, Germany: CEUR-WS.org.Google Scholar
Gracia, J., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Vila-Suero, D., and Aguado-de Cea, G. 2014. Enabling language resources to expose translations as linked data on the web. In Proceedings of 9th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2014), pp. 409–413. Reykjavik, Iceland. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Gracia, J., Villegas, M., Gómez-Pérez, A., and Bel, N. 2016. The apertium bilingual dictionaries on the web of data. Semantic Web Journal 9 (2): 231240. doi.org/10.3233/SW-170258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P. 2004. Corpus Pattern Analysis. In Euralex Proceedings, vol. 1, pp. 87–98. Lorient, France: Université de Bretagne-Sud.Google Scholar
Hanks, P. 2007. Pattern Dictionary of English Verbs (PDEV) – Project Page. http://pdev.org.uk. Last accessed on 02.08.2018.Google Scholar
Hanks, P., 2013. Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. Cambridge, MA, US: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P., and Pustejovsky, J. 2005. A pattern dictionary for natural language processing. Revue Française de linguistique appliquée 10 (2), pp. 63–82.Google Scholar
Hayes, B., Curtiss, S., Szabolcsi, A., Stowell, T., Stabler, E., Sportiche, D., Koopman, H., Keating, P., Munro, P., Hyams, N., and Steriade, D., 2013. Linguistics: An Introduction to Linguistic Theory. Hoboken, New Jersey, US: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Hellmann, S. 2013. Integrating Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Language Resources Using Linked Data. Universität Leipzig. PhD Thesis. http://svn.aksw.org/papers/2013/Thesis_Sebastian/submission/public_version.pdf.Google Scholar
Hellmann, S., Lehmann, J., Auer, S., and Brümmer, M. 2013. Integrating NLP using linked data. In International Semantic Web Conference, pp. 98113. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Ide, N., and Romary, L. 2004. International standard for a linguistic annotation framework. Natural Language Engineering 10 (3–4): 211225. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ide, N., and Suderman, K. 2007. GrAF: a graph-based format for. linguistic annotations. In Proceedings of the Linguistic Annotation Workshop, pp. 1–8. Prague, Czech Republic. Stroudsburg, PA, US: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Iqbal, R., Murad, M. A. A., Mustapha, A., and Sharef, N. M., 2013. An analysis of ontology engineering methodologies: a literature review. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 6 (16): 29933000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jain, P., Hitzler, P., Yeh, P. Z., Verma, K., and Sheth, A. P. 2010. Linked data is merely more data. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium: Linked Data Meets Artificial Intelligence, vol. 11, pp. 82–86. Palo Alto, California:. AAAI Publications. http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/SSS/SSS10/paper/view/1130/1454.Google Scholar
Kemps-Snijders, M., Windhouwer, M., Wittenburg, P., and Wright, S. E. 2008. ISOcat: corralling data categories in the wild. In Proceedings of the 6th edition of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC), pp. 28–30. Marrakech, Morocco. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Khan, F., Bellandi, A., and Monachini, M. 2016b. Tools and instruments for building and querying diachronic computational lexica. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Language Technology Resources and Tools for Digital Humanities (LT4DH), pp. 164–171. Osaka, Japan: The COLING 2016 Organizing Committee.Google Scholar
Khan, F., Boschetti, F., and Frontini, F. 2014. Using lemon to model lexical semantic shift in diachronic lexical resources. In Proceedings of the LDL-2014 3rd Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics, pp. 49–53. Reykjavik, Iceland. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Khan, F., Diaz-Vera, J. E., and Monachini, M. 2016a. Representing polysemy and diachronic lexicosemantic data on the semantic web. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Semantic Web for Scientific Heritage co-located with 13th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2016), pp. 37–46. Heraklion, Greece. Web. CEUR-WS.org. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1595/paper4.pdf.Google Scholar
Khan, F., Frontini, F., Boschetti, F., and Monachini, M. 2016c. Converting the Liddell Scott Greek-English lexicon into linked open data using lemon. In Proceedings of the Digital Humanities 2016: Conference Abstracts, pp. 593–596. Kraków, Poland: Jagiellonian University and Pedagogical University.Google Scholar
Khan, F., Frontini, F., Del Gratta, R., Monachini, M., and Quochi, V. 2013. Generative lexicon theory and linguistic linked open data. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon, pp. 62–69. Pisa, Italy. Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kim, J. D., Cohen, K. B., and Kim, J. J. 2015. PubAnnotation-query: a search tool for corpora with multi-layers of annotation. BMC Proceedings 9 (5): A3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1753-6561-9-S5-A3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. D., and Wang, Y. 2012. PubAnnotation: a persistent and sharable corpus and annotation repository. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Biomedical Natural Language Processing, pp. 202–205. Montrèal, Canada. Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Klimek, B. 2017. Proposing an OntoLex-MMoOn alignment: towards an interconnection of two linguistic domain models. In Proceedings of the LDK Workshops: OntoLex, TIAD and Challenges for Wordnets, pp. 68–73. Galway, Ireland. CEUR-WS.org. Web. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1899/OntoLex_2017_paper_6.pdf.Google Scholar
Klimek, B., Arndt, N., Krause, S., and Arndt, T. 2016. Creating linked data morphological language resources with MMoOn. The Hebrew Morpheme Inventory. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016), pp. 892–899. Portoroz, Slovenia. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Klimek, B., and Brümmer, M., 2015. Enhancing lexicography with semantic language databases. Kernerman Dictionary News 23: 510.Google Scholar
Lenci, A., Bel, N., Busa, F., Calzolari, N., Gola, E., Monachini, M., Ogonowski, A., Peters, W., Ruimy, N., Villegas, M., and Zampolli, A., 2000. SIMPLE: A general framework for the development of multilingual lexicons. International Journal of Lexicography 13 (4): 249263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, H., and Singh, P., 2004. ConceptNet – a practical commonsense reasoning tool-kit. BT Technology Journal 22 (4): 211226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, W. C., and Thompson, S. A., 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 8 (3): 243281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, J. P., Aguado-de-Cea, G., Buitelaar, P., Cimiano, P., Declerck, T., Gómez Pérez, A., Gracia, J., Hollink, L., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Spohr, D., and Wunner, T. 2010. The lemon cookbook. Technical report, Monnet Project. http://www.lemon-model.net/lemon-cookbook.pdf.Google Scholar
McCrae, J. P., Aguado-de-Cea, G., Buitelaar, P., Cimiano, P., Declerck, T., Gómez-Pérez, A., Gracia, J., Hollink, L., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Spohr, D., and Wunner, T., 2012. Interchanging lexical resources on the semantic web. Language Resources and Evaluation 46 (4): 701719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, J. P., and Cimiano, P. 2015. Linghub: a Linked Data based portal supporting the discovery of language resources. In Proceedings of SEMANTiCS (Posters and Demos), vol. 1481, pp. 88–91. Vienna, Austria. CEUR-WS.org. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1481/paper27.pdf.Google Scholar
McCrae, J. P., Chiarcos, C., Bond, F., Cimiano, P., Declerck, T., de Melo, G., . . . and Osenova, P. 2016. The open linguistics working group: developing the linguistic linked open data cloud. In Proceedings of 10th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2016), pp. 2435–2441. Portoroz, Slovenia. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
McCrae, J. P., Fellbaum, C., and Cimiano, P. 2014. Publishing and linking WordNet using lemon and RDF. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics, Reykjavik, Iceland. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). https://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/download/2732779/2732785.Google Scholar
Mel’cuk, I. M., 1997. Vers une linguistique Sens-Texte: leçon inaugurale faite le vendredi 10 janvier 1997. Paris, France: Collège de France.Google Scholar
Mel’cuk, I. 1998. Collocations and lexical functions. In Cowie, A. P. (ed.), Phraseology. Theory, Analysis, and Applications, pp. 2353. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Menke, P., 2016. The Fiesta Data Model: A Novel Approach to the Representation of Heterogeneous Multimodal Interaction Data. Norderstedt, Germany: BoD–Books on Demand.Google Scholar
Menke, P., McCrae, J., and Cimiano, P. 2013. Releasing multimodal data as Linguistic Linked Open Data: An experience report. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics (LDL-2013): Representing and Linking Lexicons, Terminologies and Other Language Data, pp. 44–52. Pisa, Italy. Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Miles, A., and Bechhofer, S. 2009. SKOS simple knowledge organization system reference. 18 August 2009, W3C recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium. https://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference.Google Scholar
Millard, I., Glaser, H., Salvadores, M., and Shadbolt, N. 2010. Consuming multiple linked data sources: challenges and experiences. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Consuming Linked Data (COLD2010), pp. 1–12. Shanghai, China. CEUR-WS.org. Web. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-665/MillardEtAl_COLD2010.pdf.Google Scholar
Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Aguado de Cea, G., Gómez-Pérez, A., and Peters, W., 2011. Enriching ontologies with multilingual information. Natural Language Engineering 17 (03): 283309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, S. 2012. Using Linked Data to create a typological knowledge base. In Chiarcos, C., Nordhoff, S. and Hellmann, S. (ed.), Linked Data in Linguistics, pp. 129138. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, S., and Wright, R. 2009. Phonetics information base and lexicon (PHOIBLE). Web. http://phoible.org.Google Scholar
Nordhoff, S. 2012. Linked data for linguistic diversity research: Glottolog/langdoc and asjp online. In Chiarcos, C., Nordhoff, S. and Hellmann, S. (ed.), Linked Data in Linguistics, pp. 191200. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordhoff, S., and Hammarström, H. 2011. Glottolog/Langdoc: defining dialects, languages, and language families as collections of resources. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Linked Science, vol. 783, pp. 53–58. CEUR-WS. Web. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-783/paper7.pdf.Google Scholar
Nuzzolese, A. G., Gangemi, A., and Presutti, V. 2011. Gathering lexical linked data and knowledge patterns from FrameNet. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Knowledge Capture (K-CAP ’11), pp. 41–48. Banff, AB, Canada. New York, New York, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
Ogden, C. K., Richards, I. A., Ranulf, S., and Cassirer, E., 1923. The Meaning of Meaning. A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Oltramari, A., and Vetere, G. 2008. Lexicon and ontology interplay in Senso Comune. In Proceedings of OntoLex, pp. 24–30. Marrakech, Morocco. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Parvizi, A., Kohl, M., González, M., and Saur, M. 2016. Towards a linguistic ontology with an emphasis on reasoning and knowledge reuse. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016), pp. 441–448. Portoroz, Slovenia. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S., Hartshorne, C., Weiss, P., and Burks, A. W., 1958. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce: Edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss: Science and philosophy and Reviews, Correspondence, and Bibliography. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Picca, D., Gliozzo, A. M., and Gangemi, A. 2008. LMM: an OWL-DL MetaModel to represent heterogeneous lexical knowledge. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08), pp. 2413–2419. Marrakech, Morocco. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Polguère, A. 2006. Structural properties of lexical systems: monolingual and multilingual perspectives. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Multilingual Language Resources and Interoperability, pp. 50–59. Sydney, Australia. Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Polguère, A., 2014. From writing dictionaries to weaving lexical networks. International Journal of Lexicography 27 (4): 396418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pradhan, S., Hovy, E. H., Marcus, M., Palmer, M., Ramshaw, L., and Weischedel, R., 2007. OntoNotes: a unified relational semantic representation. International Journal of Semantic Computing 4 (1): 405419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J., 1991. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17 (4): 409441.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J., and Bouillon, P., 1995. Aspectual coercion and logical polysemy. Journal of Semantics 12 (2): 133162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubiera, E., Polo, L., Berrueta, D., and El Ghali, A. 2012. TELIX: an RDF-based model for linguistic annotation. In Simperl, E., Cimiano, P., Polleres, A., Corcho, O. and Presutti, V. (ed.), The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, pp. 195209. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruimy, N., Corazzari, O., Gola, E., Spanu, A., Calzolari, N., and Zampolli, A. 1998. The european le-parole project: the Italian syntactic lexicon. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 1998), pp. 241–248. Granada, Spain. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar
Ruimy, N., Monachini, M., Distante, R., Guazzini, E., Molino, S., Ulivieri, M., Calzolari, N., and Zampolli, A. 2002. CLIPS, a multi-level Italian computational lexicon: a glimpse to data. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2002), pp. 792–799. Las Palmas, Canary Islands, Spain. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar
Sánchez Rada, J. F., and Iglesias Fernandez, C. A. 2013. Onyx: describing emotions on the web of data. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Emotion and Sentiment in Social and Expressive Media, pp. 71–82. Turin, Italy. CEUR-WS.org. Web. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1096/paper6.pdf.Google Scholar
Saulwick, A., Windhouwer, M., Dimitriadis, A., and Goedemans, R. 2005. Distributed tasking in ontology mediated integration of typological databases for linguistic research. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2005), Porto, Portugal. Porto, Portugal: FEUP Ed.Google Scholar
Schuurman, I., Windhouwer, M., Ohren, O., and Zeman, D. 2016. CLARIN concept registry: the new semantic registry. In Selected Papers from the CLARIN Annual Conference 2015, October 14–16, 2015, Wroclaw, Poland, vol. 123, pp. 6270. Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University Electronic Press.Google Scholar
Sérasset, G. 2015. Dbnary: wiktionary as a lemon-based multilingual lexical resource in rdf. Semantic Web 6 (4): 355361. http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/dbnary-wiktionary-lemon-based-multilingual-lexical-resource-rdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherif, M. A., and Ngonga Ngomo, A. C. 2015. Semantic Quran. Semantic Web 6 (4): 339–45. http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/semantic-quran-multilingual-resource-natural-language-processing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skut, W., Brants, T., Krenn, B., and Uszkoreit, H. 1998. A linguistically interpreted corpus of German newspaper text. In Proceedings of the 10th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information (ESSLLI’98). Workshop on Recent Advances in Corpus Annotation, Saarbrücken, Germany, o.A. http://www.coli.uni-sb.de/publikationen/softcopies/Skut:1998:LIC.pdf.Google Scholar
Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., and Burnard, L. (Eds.) 1994. Guidelines for electronic text encoding and interchange. Technical Report, Chicago, USA; Oxford, UK: Text Encoding Initiative.Google Scholar
Spohr, D. 2012. Towards a Multifunctional Lexical Resource: Design and Implementation of a Graph-Based Lexicon Model, vol. 141. Berlin, Germany; Boston, USA: De Gruyter. http://www.degruyter.com/view/product/179961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Studer, R., Benjamins, V. R., and Fensel, D. 1998. Knowledge engineering: principles and methods. Data and Knowledge Engineering 25 (1–2): 161197. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169023X97000566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tchechmedjiev, A., Sérasset, G., Goulian, J., and Schwab, D. 2014. Attaching translations to proper lexical senses in DBnary. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics (LDL), pp. 5–12. Reykjavik, Iceland. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Toral, A., and Monachini, M. 2007. SIMPLE-OWL: a generative lexicon ontology for NLP and the Semantic Web. In Workshop on Cooperative Construction of Linguistic Knowledge Bases (AIIA 2007). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.100.7798.Google Scholar
Trippel, T., 2006. The Lexicon Graph Model: A Generic Model for Multimodal Lexicon Development. Saarbrücken, Germany: AQ-Verlag.Google Scholar
Vila-Suero, D., Gómez-Pérez, A., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Gracia, J., and Aguado-de-Cea, G. 2014. Publishing linked data on the web: The multilingual dimension. In Buitelaar, P. and Cimiano, P. (ed.), Towards the Multilingual Semantic Web, pp. 101117. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Villegas, M., and Bel, N. 2015. PAROLE/SIMPLE ‘lemon’ ontology and lexicons. Semantic Web 6 (4): 363369. http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/converting-parole-simple-clips-lexicon-rdf-lemon-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villegas, M., Melero, M., Bel, N., and Gracia, J. 2016. Leveraging RDF graphs for crossing multiple bilingual dictionaries. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016), pp. 868–876. Portoroz, Slovenia. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Vossen, P., Bloksma, L., Rodriguez, H., Climent, S., Calzolari, N., Roventini, A., Bertagna, F., Alonge, A., and Peters, W. 1998. The EuroWordnet base concepts and top ontology. Technical Report. Deliverable D017 D 34:D036. WP5 Project EuroWordNet, LE2-4003.Google Scholar
Westerski, A., and Sánchez-Rada, J. F. 2013. Marl ontology specification, V1. 0 May 2013. Web. http://www.gsi.dit.upm.es/ontologies/marl/.Google Scholar
Westphal, P., Stadler, C., and Pool, J. 2015. Countering language attrition with PanLex and the Web of Data. Semantic Web 6 (4): 347353. http://doi.org/10.3233/SW-140138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Windhouwer, M. 2012. RELcat: a relation registry for ISOcat data categories. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12), pp. 3661–3664. Istanbul, Turkey. Paris, France: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Windhouwer, M., and Wright, S. E. 2012. Linking to linguistic data categories in ISOcat. In Chiarcos, C., Nordhoff, S. and Hellmann, S. (ed.), Linked Data in Linguistics, pp. 99107. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, F., and Gibson, E., 2005. Representing discourse coherence: a corpus-based study. Computational Linguistics 31 (2): 249287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 509
Total number of PDF views: 185 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 04th October 2018 - 28th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-6585876b8c-6qrbf Total loading time: 0.952 Render date: 2021-01-28T10:15:11.380Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Models to represent linguistic linked data
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Models to represent linguistic linked data
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Models to represent linguistic linked data
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *