Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Lacito Linguistic Data Archiving Project
Background
Future Work
Interactions with Relational Data
References

A Formal Framework for Linguistic Annotation

Profile image of Uzma khizerUzma khizer

Abstract

Linguistic annotation' covers any descriptive or analytic notations applied to raw language data. The basic data may be in the form of time functions -audio, video and/or physiological recordings -or it may be textual. The added notations may include transcriptions of all sorts (from phonetic features to discourse structures), part-of-speech and sense tagging, syntactic analysis, 'named entity' identification, co-reference annotation, and so on. While there are several ongoing efforts to provide formats and tools for such annotations and to publish annotated linguistic databases, the lack of widely accepted standards is becoming a critical problem. Proposed standards, to the extent they exist, have focussed on file formats. This paper focuses instead on the logical structure of linguistic annotations. We survey a wide variety of existing annotation formats and demonstrate a common conceptual core, the annotation graph. This provides a formal framework for constructing, maintaining and searching linguistic annotations, while remaining consistent with many alternative data structures and file formats.

Related papers

Handbook of Linguistic Annotation
Roser Sauri

Handbook of Linguistic Annotation, 2017

Effectively managing the collaboration of many annotators is a crucial ingredient for the success of larger annotation projects. For collaboration, web-based tools offer a low-entry way gathering annotations from distributed contributors. While the management structure of annotation tools is more or less stable across projects, the kind of annotations vary widely between projects. The challenge for web-based tools for multi-layer text annotation is to combine ease of use and availability through the web with maximal flexibility regarding the types and layers of annotations. In this chapter, we outline requirements for web-based annotation tools in detail and review a variety of tools in respect to these requirements. Further, we discuss two web-based multi-layer annotation tools in detail: GATE Teamware and WebAnno. While differing in some aspects, both tools largely fulfill the requirements for today's web-based annotation tools. Finally, we point out further directions, such as increased schema flexibility and tighter integration of automation for annotation suggestions.

View PDFchevron_right
CELLAR : A Data Modeling System for Linguistic Annotation
Gary Simons

2000

CELLAR is not a particular annotation schema, but is a system for expressing and building annotation schemas. The paper illustrates how an annotation schema is expressed as an XML document that defines classes of objects, their properties, and the relationships between objects. The schema is then implemented via automatic conversion to a relational database schema and an XML DTD for data import and export. Requirements for Linguistic Data Modeling CELLAR is a data modeling system that was built specifically for the purpose of linguistic annotation. It was designed to model the following five fundamental aspects of the nature of linguistic data: 1. The data in a text unfold sequentially; the data model must therefore be able to represent text in proper sequence. 2. The data are hierarchically structured; the data model must therefore be able to express hierarchical structures of arbitrary depth. 3. The data elements bear information in many simultaneous dimensions; the data model mus...

View PDFchevron_right
Annotation Graphs: A Foundation for Integrating Tools, Formats and Corpora
Mark Liberman

2007

Abstract In recent work we have presented a formal framework for linguistic annotations using labeled acyclic digraphs. Theseannotation graphs'o er a simple yet powerful method for representing complex annotation structures incorporating hierarchy and overlap. We illustrate some applications to existing discourse-level annotations of text and speech data. Annotation graphs are capable of representing the structure and content of a diverse range of formats, and this opens the door to wide-ranging integration of tools and corpora.

View PDFchevron_right
Content of Linguistic Annotation: Standards and Practices (CLASP) Research Activities and Findings
Nianwen Xue
View PDFchevron_right
Complex linguistic annotation --- no easy way out!
Kalika Bali

Proceedings of the Third Linguistic Annotation Workshop on - ACL-IJCNLP '09, 2009

Alternative paths to linguistic annotation, such as those utilizing games or exploiting the web users, are becoming popular in recent times owing to their very high benefit-to-cost ratios. In this paper, however, we report a case study on POS annotation for Bangla and Hindi, where we observe that reliable linguistic annotation requires not only expert annotators, but also a great deal of supervision. For our hierarchical POS annotation scheme, we find that close supervision and training is necessary at every level of the hierarchy, or equivalently, complexity of the tagset. Nevertheless, an intelligent annotation tool can significantly accelerate the annotation process and increase the inter-annotator agreement for both expert and non-expert annotators. These findings lead us to believe that reliable annotation requiring deep linguistic knowledge (e.g., POS, chunking, Treebank, semantic role labeling) requires expertise and supervision. The focus, therefore, should be on design and development of appropriate annotation tools equipped with machine learning based predictive modules that can significantly boost the productivity of the annotators. 1

View PDFchevron_right
NAF: the NLP Annotation Format Technical Report NWR-2014-3
Piek Vossen
View PDFchevron_right
Instant Annotations: Applying NLP Methods to the Annotation of Spoken Language Documentation Corpora
Ciprian Gerstenberger, Michael Rießler, Niko Partanen

Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Uralic Languages

The paper describes work-in-progress by the Pite Saami, Kola Saami and Izhva Komi language documentation projects, all of which use similar data and technical frameworks and are carried out in Freiburg and in collaboration with Hamburg, Syktyvkar, Tromsø and Uppsala. Our projects work in the endangered language documentation framework and record new spoken language data, digitize available recordings and annotate these multimedia data in order to provide comprehensive language corpora as databases for future research on and for endangered and under-described Uralic speech communities. Applying NLP methods in language documentation – specifically rule-based morphological and syntactic analyzers – helps us to create more systematically annotated corpora, rather than eclectic data collections. We propose a step-by-step approach to reach higher-level annotations by using and improving truly computational methods. This is unlike the mainstream, which prefers manual or semi-manual work. Ultimately, the spoken corpora created by our projects will be useful for scientifically significant quantitative investigations on these languages in the future.

View PDFchevron_right
Annotation graphs as a framework for multidimensional linguistic data analysis
Mark Liberman

1999

Abstract In recent work we have presented a formal framework for linguistic annotation based on labeled acyclic digraphs. These'annotation graphs' offer a simple yet powerful method for representing complex annotation structures incorporating hierarchy and overlap. Here, we motivate and illustrate our approach using discourse-level annotations of text and speech data drawn from the CALLHOME, COCONUT, MUC-7, DAMSL and TRAINS annotation schemes.

View PDFchevron_right
A Framework for Multi-level Linguistic Annotation
Patrice Lopez

2000

This article presents a 3-step model for multilayer annotations of corpora. Each kind of annotation for a textual corporacorresponds to a di erent view on the same document. This principle can be expressed rst with a general relational model dedicated to the organisation of LR. This abstract model is then implemented as an application of the XML formalism for the encoding of large corpora. The exploitation of this kind of annotated corpora requires e cient manipulation processes and reversive access. We propose to use a third step representation based on a set of optimised FSA resulting from the parsing of the XML documents. These propositions have been implemented in the rst version of a workbench dedicated to the French Le Monde corpus.

View PDFchevron_right
Towards an integrated representation of multiple layers of linguistic annotation in multilingual corpora
Elke Teich

Computing, 2001

View PDFchevron_right

References (38)

  1. <21/3291.29> W/well <22/> 2348.81 2391.11 <12/> W/this <13/2391.11> <11/2348.81> speaker/Roger-Hedgecock <14/2391.60> <11/2348.81> spkrtype/male <14/2391.60> 2391.11 2391.29 <13/2391.11> W/country <14/2391.60> <11/2348.81> speaker/Roger-Hedgecock <14/2391.60> <11/2348.81> spkrtype/male <14/2391.60> 2391.29 2391.60 <13/2391.11> W/country <14/2391.60> <22/> W/i <23/2391.60> <21/3291.29> W/well <22/> <21/3291.29> speaker/Gloria-Allred <25/2439.82>
  2. T. Altosaar, M. Karjalainen, M. Vainio, and E. Meister. Finnish and Estonian speech applications developed on an object-oriented speech processing and database system. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation Workshop: Speech Database Development for Central and Eastern European Languages, 1998. Granada, Spain, May 1998.
  3. A. Anderson, M. Bader, E. Bard, E. Boyle, G. M. Doherty, S. Garrod, S. Isard, J. Kowtko, J. McAllister, J. Miller, C. Sotillo, H. Thompson, and R. Weinert. The HCRC Map Task corpus. Language and Speech, 34:351-66, 1991.
  4. Claude Barras, Edouard Geoffrois, Zhibiao Wu, and Mark Liberman. Transcriber: a free tool for segmenting, labelling and transcribing speech. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 1998.
  5. Steven Bird. Computational Phonology: A Constraint-Based Approach. Studies in Natural Language Processing. Cambridge University Press, 1995.
  6. Steven Bird. A lexical database tool for quantitative phonological research. In Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1997.
  7. Steven Bird and Ewan Klein. Phonological events. Journal of Linguistics, 26:33-56, 1990.
  8. Steven Bird and D. Robert Ladd. Presenting autosegmental phonology. Journal of Linguistics, 27:193-210, 1991.
  9. Catherine Browman and Louis Goldstein. Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology, 6:201-51, 1989.
  10. Peter F. Brown, John Cocke, Stephen A. Della Pietra, Vincent J. Della Pietra, Fredrick Jelinek, Robert L. Mercer, and Paul S. Roossin. A statistical approach to machine translation. Computational Linguistics, 16:79-85, 1990.
  11. Bob Carpenter. The Logic of Typed Feature Structures, volume 32 of Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, 1992.
  12. Steve Cassidy and Jonathan Harrington. Emu: An enhanced hierarchical speech data management system. In Proceedings of the Sixth Australian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology, 1996. [www.shlrc.mq.edu.au/emu/].
  13. Giuseppe Di Battista, Peter Eades, Roberto Tamassia, and Ioannis G. Tollis. Algorithms for drawing graphs: an annotated bibliography. [wilma.cs.brown/edu/pub/papers/compgeo/gdbiblio.ps.gz], 1994.
  14. Laila Dybkjaer, Niels Ole Bernsen, Hans Dybkjaer, David McKelvie, and Andreas Mengel. The mate markup framework. MATE Deliverable D1.2, Odense University, 1998.
  15. Konrad Ehlich. HIAT -a transcription system for discourse data. In Jane A. Edwards and Martin D. Lampert, editors, Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research, pages 123-48. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1992.
  16. John S. Garofolo, Lori F. Lamel, William M. Fisher, Jonathon G. Fiscus, David S. Pallett, and Nancy L. Dahlgren. The DARPA TIMIT Acoustic-Phonetic Continuous Speech Corpus CDROM. NIST, 1986. [www.ldc.upenn.edu/lol/docs/TIMIT.html].
  17. Gerald Gazdar and Chris Mellish. Natural Language Processing in Prolog: An Introduction to Computational Linguistics. Addison-Wesley, 1989.
  18. J. J. Godfrey, E. C. Holliman, and J. McDaniel. Switchboard: A telephone speech corpus for research and develpment. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, volume I, pages 517-20, 1992.
  19. S. Greenberg. The switchboard transcription project. LVCSR Summer Research Workshop, Johns Hopkins University, 1996.
  20. R. Grishman. TIPSTER Architecture Design Document Version 2.3. Technical report, DARPA, 1997. [www.nist.gov/itl/div894/894.02/related projects/tipster/].
  21. Jonathan Harrington, Steve Cassidy, Janet Fletcher, and A. McVeigh. The Mu+ speech database system. Computer Speech and Language, 7:305-31, 1993.
  22. Susan R. Hertz. The delta programming language: an integrated approach to nonlinear phonology, phonetics, and speech synthesis. In John Kingston and Mary E. Beckman, editors, Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech, chapter 13, pages 215-57. Cambridge University Press, 1990.
  23. Daniel Jurafsky, Rebecca Bates, Noah Coccaro, Rachel Martin, Marie Meteer, Klaus Ries, Elizabeth Shriberg, Andreas Stolcke, Paul Taylor, and Carol Van Ess-Dykema. Automatic detection of discourse structure for speech recognition and understanding. In Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE Workshop on Speech Recognition and Understanding, pages 88-95, Santa Barbara, 1997.
  24. Daniel Jurafsky, Elizabeth Shriberg, and Debra Biasca. Switchboard SWBD-DAMSL Labeling Project Coder's Manual, Draft 13. Technical Report 97-02, University of Colorado Institute of Cognitive Science, 1997. [stripe.colorado.edu/˜jurafsky/manual.august1.html].
  25. Brian MacWhinney. The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum., second edition, 1995. [poppy.psy.cmu.edu/childes/].
  26. Mitchell P. Marcus, Beatrice Santorini, and Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2):313-30, 1993. www.cis.upenn.edu/ treebank/home.html.
  27. Boyd Michailovsky, John B. Lowe, and Michel Jacobson. Linguistic data archiving project. [lacito.vjf.cnrs.fr/ARCHIVAG/ENGLISH.htm].
  28. Carol Neidle and D. MacLaughlin. SignStream TM : a tool for linguistic research on signed languages. Sign Language and Linguistics, 1:111-14, 1998. [web.bu.edu/asllrp/SignStream].
  29. NIST. A universal transcription format (UTF) annotation specification for evaluation of spoken language technology corpora. [www.nist.gov/speech/hub4 98/utf-1.0-v2.ps], 1998.
  30. Ron Sacks-Davis, Tuong Dao, James A. Thom, and Justin Zobel. Indexing documents for queries on structure, content and attributes. In International Symposium on Digital Media Information Base, pages 236-45, 1997.
  31. Emanuel Schegloff. Reflections on studying prosody in talk-in-interaction. Language and Speech, 41:235-60, 1998. www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/schegloff/prosody/.
  32. Florian Schiel, Susanne Burger, Anja Geumann, and Karl Weilhammer. The Partitur format at BAS. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 1998. [www.phonetik.uni-muenchen.de/Bas/BasFormatseng.html].
  33. Kåre Sjölander, Jonas Beskow, Joakim Gustafson, Erland Lewin, Rolf Carlson, and Björn Granström. Web-based educational tools for speech technology. In ICSLP-98, 1998.
  34. Ann Taylor. Dysfluency Annotation Stylebook for the Switchboard Corpus. University of Pennsylvania, Department of Computer and Information Science, 1995. [ftp.cis.upenn.edu/pub/treebank/swbd/doc/DFL-book.ps].
  35. Paul A. Taylor, Alan W. Black, and Richard J. Caley. The architecture of the Festival speech synthesis system. In Third International Workshop on Speech Synthesis, Sydney, Australia, November 1998.
  36. Paul A. Taylor, Alan W. Black, and Richard J. Caley. Heterogeneous relation graphs as a mechanism for representing linguistic information. [www.cstr.ed.ac.uk/publications/new/draft/Taylor draft a.ps], 1999.
  37. Text Encoding Initiative. Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Interchange (TEI P3). Oxford University Computing Services, 1994. [www.uic.edu/orgs/tei/].
  38. Henry S. Thompson and David McKelvie. Hyperlink semantics for standoff markup of read-only documents. In SGML Europe '97, 1997. [www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/˜ht/sgmleu97.html].

Related papers

Outline of the international standard linguistic annotation framework
Laurent Romary

Proceedings of the ACL 2003 workshop on Linguistic …, 2003

This paper describes the outline of a linguistic annotation framework under development by ISO TC37 SC WG1-1. This international standard provides an architecture for the creation, annotation, and manipulation of linguistic resources and processing software. The goal is to provide maximum flexibility for encoders and annotators, while at the same time enabling interchange and re-use of annotated linguistic resources. We describe here the outline of the standard for the purposes of enabling annotators to begin to explore how their schemes may map into the framework.

View PDFchevron_right
International standard for a linguistic annotation framework
Laurent Romary

Proceedings of the HLT- …, 2003

This paper describes the outline of a linguistic annotation framework under development by ISO TC37 SC WG1-1. This international standard will provide an architecture for the creation, annotation, and manipulation of linguistic resources and processing software. The outline described here results from a meeting of approximately 20 experts in the field, who determined the principles and fundamental structure of the framework. The goal is to provide maximum flexibility for encoders and annotators, while at the same time enabling interchange and re-use of annotated linguistic resources.

View PDFchevron_right
Proceedings of the Third Linguistic Annotation Workshop}
Rada Mihalcea

ii The Linguistic Annotation Workshop (The LAW) provides a forum to facilitate the exchange and propagation of research results concerned with the annotation, manipulation, and exploitation of corpora; work towards the harmonization and interoperability from the perspective of the increasingly large number of tools and frameworks for annotated language resources; and work towards a consensus on all issues crucial to the advancement of the field of corpus annotation. Although this year's LAW is officially the third edition, LAW itself is the convergence of several previous workshops-including NLPXML, FLAC, LINC, and Frontiers in Corpus Annotation-dating back to the first NLPXML in 2001. This series of workshops attests to the rapid developments in the creation and use of annotated data in both language technology and empirical approaches to linguistic studies over the past 10 years.

View PDFchevron_right
Representing linguistic corpora and their annotations
Laurent Romary

Proceedings of the Fifth Language Resources and …, 2006

A Linguistic Annotation Framework (LAF) is being developed within the International Standards Organization Technical Committee 37 Sub-committee on Language Resource Management (ISO TC37 SC4). LAF is intended to provide a standardized means to represent linguistic data and its annotations that is defined broadly enough to accommodate all types of linguistic annotations, and at the same time provide means to represent precise and potentially complex linguistic information. The general principles informing the design of LAF have been previously reported . This paper describes some of the more technical aspects of the LAF design that have been addressed in the process of finalizing the specifications for the standard.

View PDFchevron_right
ATLAS: A flexible and extensible architecture for linguistic annotation
John Henderson

Computing Research Repository, 2000

We describe a formal model for annotating linguistic artifacts, from which we derive an application programming interface (API) to a suite of tools for manipulating these annotations. The abstract logical model provides for a range of storage formats and promotes the reuse of tools that interact through this API. We focus first on "Annotation Graphs," a graph model for annotations on linear signals (such as text and speech) indexed by intervals, for which efficient database storage and querying techniques are applicable. We note how a wide range of existing annotated corpora can be mapped to this annotation graph model. This model is then generalized to encompass a wider variety of linguistic "signals," including both naturally occuring phenomena (as recorded in images, video, multi-modal interactions, etc.), as well as the derived resources that are increasingly important to the engineering of natural language processing systems (such as word lists, dictionaries, aligned bilingual corpora, etc.). We conclude with a review of the current efforts towards implementing key pieces of this architecture.

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved