Living Sources in Lexical Description

This is a protected page.

General ideas about the Living Sources concept

Motivation/Why do we need a Living Soruces concept?

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 They do not publish them because of: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

• 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

(First implementation of the Living Sources concept)

Scientific scope

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

Infrastructure

• 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

Needed man-power: Lexical Curator

Functional specification/Requirements

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• Version 0 (not peer reviewed) should be handled like a preprint and should already be published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

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

1. editorial criteria: technical check of coherence, completeness, and homogenity of the sample
2. 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

Text Encoding Initiative

Max-Planck-Institut

Enhanced Scientific Documentation

One Documents Does it all

Uniform Resource Locator

Extensible Markup Language