[open-linguistics] Linguistic relevance

[Christian Chiarcos]

> Have you already defined somewhere what "linguistic resources in a strict
> sense" means exactly, and is this an operational definition?
>

Actually, I had, as a comment to Suggestion 3:

*"Linguistic resources* in a strict sense comprise resources created for
the purpose of linguistic research or natural language processing (corpora,
lexical-semantic resources, typological databases, linguistically-annotated
databases), *non-linguistic, linguistically relevant resources* comprise
resources not created for, but useful for linguistic research or natural
language processing, e.g., large collections of texts such as news
articles, encyclopedic or terminological knowledge or general knowledge
bases such as DBpedia, or metadata collections such as bibliography
repositories"

I very much like Jonathan's elegant and pragmatic way of defining
non-linguistic, linguistically relevant resources as second-order nodes
(see http://wiki.okfn.org/Wg/linguistics/llod-categories#Proposals), and
updated suggestion 3 accordingly:
"include only strictly linguistic data as first-class nodes, plus other
data to which they are linked as second-class nodes, and to include links
only when at least one of the linked nodes is first-class".

I am not sure, however, whether my definition of "linguistic resources in a
strict sense" is operational.

What are your ideas about the following:
- having an associated publication at a linguistic or CL venue (LSA, DGfS,
ALT, ...; LREC, ACL, COLING, ...) or in a corresponding journal or series
(LREJ, TACL, ...), or
- being developed at a (university or company) department or by an
individual specialized in linguistics, philology, lexicography, natural
language processing, or localization.

Would that be too strict? It would provide concise criteria, at least, and
we would need to maintain a list of conferences,  journals and contributing
disciplines.

@Judith and Jonathan: As the both of you provide a partial definition
(second-order nodes) only, I integrated their core idea into Suggestion 3
and moved them to a separate discussion section. Hope that's ok, feel free
to revise.

Best,
Christian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-linguistics/attachments/20150122/b28738be/attachment-0003.html>