Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2020 / A Tree Extension for CoNLL-RDF

A Tree Extension for CoNLL-RDF

Summary

CoNLL-TSV formats (one word per line, tab-separated columns) are very widespread in NLP, in the UD and UniMorph projects, and in CWB and SketchEngine. However, they represent only word-level annotations well. Earlier, the same authors created the CoNLL-RDF library. It converts such tables into RDF graphs that can be modified via SPARQL Update, linked to external ontologies, and written back to TSV, RDF, or other formats. The library itself did not support constituent structures or text markup above the word level. The authors extended CoNLL-RDF for two kinds of TSV. The first is the bracket notation of constituent trees from the early CoNLL Shared Tasks. The second is embedded XML elements, as used by CWB and SketchEngine. Tree nodes that do not correspond to individual words are described with the POWLA vocabulary. The library can now read such annotations, process them as a graph, and serialize them again. The paper contains no quantitative metrics, since it is an infrastructure description. The value of the work is that tree-structured and textual structures can be transferred between familiar NLP formats and Linked Data.

Key points

  • The base version of CoNLL-RDF (Chiarcos & Fäth, 2017) relies on a small fragment of NIF: nif:Sentence, nif:Word, nif:nextWord, nif:nextSentence. It converts column names into properties in the conll namespace. HEAD plays a special role: it is a link from a word to its syntactic head.
  • The new extension supports two formats: Penn Treebank-style bracketed phrases from the CoNLL Shared Tasks and XML tags in CWB/SketchEngine files.
  • Trees are described with the POWLA vocabulary (Chiarcos, 2012). It does not depend on segmentation into sentences and words, so it is also suitable for annotations above the token level, for example in spoken discourse.
  • SketchEngine data were tested on a sample of the TenTen corpus provided by the University of Tartu.
  • The code is open in the authors' GitHub repository. The work was funded by the projects LiODi (BMBF) and Pret-a-LLOD (Horizon 2020, grant No. 825182).

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

Fields: Linguistics & languages

Topics Universal Dependencies Knowledge graphs & ontologies

Cite

Cite as Christian Chiarcos and Luis Glaser. 2020. A Tree Extension for CoNLL-RDF. Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

@inproceedings{chiarcos2020tree,
  title = {{A Tree Extension for CoNLL-RDF}},
  author = {Christian Chiarcos and Luis Glaser},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference},
  year = {2020},
  url = {https://aclanthology.org/2020.lrec-1.885/}
}

References

20 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Chiarcos, C. and Fäth, C. (2017). CoNLL-RDF: Linked corpora done in an NLP-friendly way. In Jorge Gracia, et al., editors, Language, Data, and Knowledge, pages 74–88, Cham, Switzerland. Springer. Chiarcos, C. and Fäth, C. (2019). Graph-based annotation engineering: Towards a gold corpus for Role a… find
  2. Chiarcos, C. (2012a). POWLA: Modeling linguistic corpora in OWL/DL. In 9th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC-2012), pages 225–239, Heraklion, Crete, May. find
  3. Chiarcos, C. (2012b). A generic formalism to represent linguistic corpora in RDF and OWL/DL. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2012), pages 3205–3212. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). find
  4. Chiarcos, C. (2012c). Powla: Modeling linguistic corpora in owl/dl. In Elena Simperl, et al., editors, The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, pages 225–239, Berlin, Heidelberg. find
  5. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Cimiano, P., Chiarcos, C., McCrae, J., and Gracia, J. (2020). find
  6. Linguistic Linked Data. Representation, Generation and Applications. Springer, Cham. de Araujo, D. A., Rigo, S. J., and Barbosa, J. L. V. (2017). Ontology-based information extraction for juridical events with case studies in Brazilian legal realm. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25(4):379–396. Dip… find
  7. Evert, S. and Hardie, A. (2011). Twenty-first century Corpus Workbench: Updating a query architecture for the new millennium. In Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2011 conference, Birmingham, UK. find
  8. Fokkens, A., Soroa, A., Beloki, Z., Ockeloen, N., Rigau, G., van Hage, W. R., and Vossen, P. (2014). NAF and GAF: Linking linguistic annotations. In Proc. 10th Joint ISO-ACL SIGSEM Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation, pages 9–16. find
  9. Harris, S. and Seaborne, A. (2013). SPARQL 1.1 query language. W3C recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium. Hellmann, S., Lehmann, J., Auer, S., and Brümmer, M. find
  10. (2013). Integrating NLP Using Linked Data. In Camille Salinesi, et al., editors, Advanced Information Systems Engineering, volume 7908, pages 98–113. find
  11. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Hovy, E., Marcus, M., Palmer, M., Ramshaw, L., and Weischedel, R. (2006). OntoNotes: The 90% solution. In Proc. of the Human Language Technology Conference of the NAACL, Companion Volume: Short Papers, NAACL-Short 2006, pages 57–60, Stroudsburg, PA, USA. Association for C… find
  12. Ide, N. and Romary, L. (2004). International standard for a linguistic annotation framework. Natural language engineering, 10(3-4):211–225. find
  13. Ide, N., Baker, C. F., Fellbaum, C., Fillmore, C. J., and Passonneau, R. (2008). MASC: The Manually Annotated Sub-Corpus of American English. In 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2008), pages 2455–2461, Marrakech, Morocco, May. Jakubı́ček, M., Kilgarriff, A., K… find
  14. Marcus, M. P., Marcinkiewicz, M. A., and Santorini, B. (1993). Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Comput. Linguist., 19(2):313–330. Nivre, J., Agić, Ž., Ahrenberg, L., and et. al. (2016). Universal dependencies 1.4. http://hdl.handle.net/11234/1-1827. ↗ our card
  15. Prud’Hommeaux, E. and Seaborne, A. (2008). SPARQL query language for RDF. W3C working draft, 4(January). find
  16. Sanderson, R., Ciccarese, P., and Young, B. (2017). Web Annotation Data Model. Technical report, W3C Recommendation. find
  17. Schmid, H. (1994). Probabilistic Part-of-Speech Tagging Using Decision Trees. In Proceedings of International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing, pages 44–49, Manchester, UK. find
  18. Stede, M., Bieler, H., Dipper, S., and Suriyawongk, A. (2006). Summar: Combining linguistics and statistics for text summarization. In 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-2006), pages 827–828, Riva del Garda, Italy. find
  19. Tandy, J., Herman, I., and Kellogg, G. (2015). Generating RDF from tabular data on the web. Technical report, W3C Recommendation. find
  20. Verhagen, M., Suderman, K., Wang, D., Ide, N., Shi, C., Wright, J., and Pustejovsky, J. (2015). The LAPPS Interchange Format. In International Workshop on Worldwide Language Service Infrastructure, pages 33–47. Springer. Zeldes, A., Ritz, J., Lüdeling, A., and Chiarcos, C. (2009). ANNIS: A search t… find

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/chiarcos-2020-tree-extension-conll-rdf/