[open-linguistics] Defining "Openness" for Linguistic Linked Open Data

Christian Chiarcos chiarcos at informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
Mon Jan 22 15:22:12 UTC 2018

Am .01.2018, 08:09 Uhr, schrieb Sebastian Nordhoff  
<sebastian.nordhoff at glottotopia.de>:

> On 01/17/2018 01:29 PM, Francis Bond wrote:
>> We have a
>> simple solution: create two diagrams:
> I second that. If I understand things correctly, this is generated
> automatically anyway, and an additional diagram should not be costly.

In fact, that was also discussed as a possibility long ago. Still, if we  
have two diagrams, it would be good* to visually recognize the open  
diagram as a part of a broader diagram that includes, for example, NC  
content. If this is indeed, at the center, it would actually serve as a  
great metaphor that open data really is at the heart of what we're doing.  
This is where some development effort comes into play.

The problem is that the current rendering process  
(https://github.com/jmccrae/llod-cloud.py) does not allow to fix the  
position of pre-positioned elements. This already is a problem to  
illustrate progress and growth for one diagram (because the bubbles are  
positioned independently with every iteration), but this also means that  
we cannot just compile the core diagram and then insert it into the larger  

As an alternative, however, one could compile the full diagram and then  
hide non-open resources (= set the color of all non-openly licensed  
resources to the background color). I double that it would look too great  
because the diagram would have huge gaps and white segments overlapping  
colored ones, but we could give it a try.

Alternatively, we could stay with one diagram, in which the difference  
between proper OD-licensed bubbles and NC are more clearly emphasized  
underlined by graphical means, e.g., the color of borders (none for NC?)  
and arrows (light gray for NC) [but not fill color, as this is used for  
sub-classifying resource categories, already].

Finally, yet another cheap alternative would be to call it the "LL(O)D"  
diagram, with the parenthesis indicating that our definition of openness  
is weaker than the open definition, but that we still aim for OD-compliant  


* The alternative to having two graphically interrelated diagrams is that  
we have two isolated ones: a smallish LL*O*D diagram and a larger LL(O)D  
diagram, but then people would probably use the latter for illustrating  
LLOD because it just looks more impressive (=larger). In the end, this  
might marginalize the "proper" LL*O*D diagram.

> Best wishes
> Sebastian
> _______________________________________________
> open-linguistics mailing list
> open-linguistics at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-linguistics
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-linguistics

Prof. Dr. Christian Chiarcos
Applied Computational Linguistics
Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität Frankfurt a. M.
60054 Frankfurt am Main, Germany

office: Robert-Mayer-Str. 10, #401b
mail: chiarcos at informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
web: http://acoli.cs.uni-frankfurt.de
tel: +49-(0)69-798-22463
fax: +49-(0)69-798-28931

More information about the open-linguistics mailing list