[open-linguistics] How to represent LLOD diagram categories at datahub ?

[Sebastian Nordhoff]

On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 12:26:43 +0200, Christian Chiarcos  
<christian.chiarcos at web.de> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> earlier, we discussed categories for coloring the LLOD diagram. The  
> diagram we prepared for LDL-2013 was based on a something like the  
> minimal consensus:
>
> - lexicon (= LREMap lexicon, olac:lexicon)
> - corpus (= LREMap corpus, ~ olac:primary data)
> - language_description (basically everything else, ~  
> olac:language_description)
>
> I guess the first two are unproblematic, but the third is very  
> heterogeneous, it includes
> - terminology repositories
> - typological databases
> - bibliographical databases
> In a way, all of these "describe language" (information about languages,  
> information about concepts relevant to the description of language,  
> information about collections of language data), but honestly, I would  
> prefer the label "other", because this is very different from what I  
> think an olac:language_description is meant to be.

As far as I can see, a language description would be a (sketch) grammar or  
a learner's manual or similar. I think we have none of those in the LLOD  
cloud (though we might in the future). olac:language_description does not  
seem to be a good choice there.

I agree with Christian that there is not a lot of internal coherence in  
group 3. What would be the reason against having 5 groups, rather than 3?  
The typological databases group nicely, and I intend to add some more  
typological databases over the next months.  Terminology repositories can  
also be grouped. This only leaves Glottolog as the odd one out, and we can  
call it "other".

I suppose we will have to have some labels for groups 3a and 3b, which  
should be dereferenceable. Is there not something like xyz:tabulardata for  
typological databases which we could subclass?

Best
Sebastian

>
> Two questions
> - Is this general classification acceptable ?
> - How shall we encode the categories ? Using tags "lexicon", "corpus",  
> etc. ? Or using a custom field "LLOD category" ? Unless anyone protests,  
> I would suggest to use tags for "lexicon" and "corpus" and classify  
> everything without such a tag as "language_description".
>
> Best,
> Christian