Difference between revisions of "Living Sources in Lexical Description"

From MPDLMediaWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 77: Line 77:
*fulltext/XML
*fulltext/XML
*webservice
*webservice
''Concept of an open submission:''
(coexistent of different versions)
*Version 0 (not peer reviewed) should be handled like a preprint and should already be published
*branding by peer reviewed version
*publishers version

Revision as of 08:55, 6 December 2007

This is a protected page.


General ideas about the Living Sources concept[edit]

Motivation/Why do we need a Living Soruces concept?[edit]

current situation:

scientists do not disclose research data. They do not publish them because of:

  • quality reasons (data collection is not finished, is not completed, etc.)
  • fear of plagiarism

Solution:

  • securing of scientific recognition and citability
  • provision of methods for data selection


Strategy/How to proceed[edit]

  • Identification of a field that is in need of a concept like Living Sources (science driven!)


What qualifies the Living Sources idea?:

  • High level quality
  • Support from scientists

=> hence an editorial board is needed


Living Sources in Lexical Description[edit]

(First implementation of the Living Sources concept)


Scientific scope[edit]

  • Lexical data, view on language description and analysis
  • Linguistics (Psycholinguistics, Ethnolinguistics, Lexicography, Terminology, Dialectology)
  • Computational Linguistics


Infrastructure[edit]

  • Two complementary scenarios:
  1. Build-up of a technical infrastructure which enhances the usability of datasets (one stop shop, comparability, searchability, persistence, etc.) (envisioned user group: scientists who look for a hosting environment)
  2. Standards of interoperability of data portals/journals/archives with a common seach engine/browser-like tool (envisioned user group: scientists who want to keep a strong hold on their data)
  • Formats (TMF, LMF, TEI/dic.)
  • Technical infrastructure: Lexus (MPI for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen), eSciDoc


Technical issues:

  • Unique identification of data objects
  • Formats for commentaries

Means[edit]

Needed man-power: Lexical Curator


Functional specification/Requirements[edit]

Submission:

Required information, seen as a preface:

  • scientific background/research field
  • editorial background/rational of the data
  • selection criteria: e.g. sampling, fields, etc.
  • data category/use of data: e.g. ODD specification, schema, etc.
  • links to other databases/sources

Required informtion about the data itself:

  • upload vs. URL
  • upload on Lexus
  • fulltext/XML
  • webservice

Concept of an open submission: (coexistent of different versions)

  • Version 0 (not peer reviewed) should be handled like a preprint and should already be published
  • branding by peer reviewed version
  • publishers version