[open-linguistics] Linguistic relevance

Fri Jan 23 08:39:39 UTC 2015

Hello!

Excuse my intrusion into the debate without introducing myself. As I 
work at the Institute of Estonian Language, I feel included in 
Christian's second point. But I want to argue against the importance of 
having an associated publication.

I think there exists many datasets without a publication that can be 
even more linguistically motivated than those having a publication in 
accord. They often convey more pragmatic semantics in a dictionary-like 
sense (thus exposing mainly "is_a" kind of relations. This kind of 
datasets are often developed inside a working group or individual person 
that might not match the criteria of specialization in linguistics etc, 
but they are done for solving the need of a "look-up function". This 
functionality might very well be general enough to be used by others. I 
think this "usability by others" factor could be said to convey a 
linguistic relevance, if we look at them as linguistic signs as 
agreed-upon but arbitrary :-).

Maybe I just got the logic wrong behind Christian's list: a logical AND 
for the two points feels for me too strict. But also, a logical OR feels 
too lax (for a country with 1.5 million people, specialization is 
necessarily a shallower concept than in a big country).

Best wishes
Kristian Kankainen

22.01.2015 14:37, Christian Chiarcos kirjutas:
> 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.