Living Sources in Lexical Description

This is a protected page.

General ideas about the Living Sources concept[edit]

Motivation/Why do we need a Living Sources 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 They do not publish them because of: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:

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)
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Version 0 (not peer reviewed) should be handled like a preprint and should already be published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

Peer reviewing[edit]

open peer review
peer review treated as a commentary
2-steps-process/focus on 2 criteria:

editorial criteria: technical check of coherence, completeness, and homogenity of the sample
scientific criteria: check for inventiveness, added value, and quality of scientific contribution (done by scientific committee)

Open issue:

check if Living Reviews infrastructure for the peer review process can be re-used
need of a sampling strategy on the data

sample of full entries
full overview of specific fields (e.g. all parts of speech, all etymological fields)

Rights[edit]

Open Access
Creative Commons Licence for data and metadata (by default: attribution)
No copyright transfer
agreement with authors that Living Sources in Lexical Description has the rights (to store) and distribute the data under the Creative Commons Licence

Miscellaneous[edit]

possibility of third party commentaries by any registered user

Support[edit]

Potential scientific support from MPI for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, MPI for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig and other Max Planck Instituts
Potential financial support: ESF call BABEL, Volkswagenstiftung, Heinz-Nixdorf-Stiftung

Other[edit]

applied for domains livingsources.org, livingsources.com, livingsources.eu (request processed by AEI Potsdam)