Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2022 / The Index Thomisticus Treebank as Linked Data in the LiLa Knowledge Base

The Index Thomisticus Treebank as Linked Data in the LiLa Knowledge Base

Summary

Latin treebanks already share a common annotation format thanks to Universal Dependencies, but they are still not linked to lexical resources. To find the meaning of a word from a corpus, its translations or its WordNet synsets, one has to query different services separately. Moreover, the converters to UD do not fully harmonize the annotation vocabularies of different projects. The authors propose publishing dependency treebanks as Linguistic Linked Open Data (LLOD). The approach is demonstrated on the Index Thomisticus Treebank (ITTB), the largest syntactically annotated Latin corpus, which consists of works by Thomas Aquinas. In the LiLa knowledge base, all annotation layers of ITTB are represented as an RDF graph. The corpus structure is described with the POWLA ontology, and morphology and syntactic relations with the OLiA ontologies. Lemmatized tokens are linked to lemmas in the Lemma Bank. Two versions of the syntactic annotation, the original one and the one converted to UD, are attached to the same tokens. In this way, the treebank becomes part of a network of Latin resources that can be queried with SPARQL, and the UD annotation becomes easier to compare with other schemes. The authors present this as a deeper model for publishing UD corpora in LLOD than the shallow conversion via CoNLL-RDF.

Key points

  • ITTB contains about 450 thousand tokens of texts by Thomas Aquinas (13th century). It is the largest of the five Latin treebanks in UD 2.9; the others are Perseus (~53 thousand), PROIEL (~200 thousand), LLCT (~242 thousand) and UDante (~55 thousand).
  • Three ontologies are used: POWLA for corpus data, in particular the hierarchy of documents and their parts; OLiA for linguistic annotation, in particular the models for UD tags and relations following Chiarcos et al. (2020); OntoLex-Lemon for lexical data.
  • The core of LiLa is the Lemma Bank, which gathers its lemmas from the database used by LEMLAT, a morphological analyzer. Corpus tokens and lexicon entries become interoperable because they refer to the same lemmas.
  • Both syntactic annotations of ITTB, the original and the UD one, are linked to the very same tokens. The data are open for querying through the LiLa SPARQL endpoint.
  • The UD corpora already present in the LLOD Cloud were converted shallowly via CoNLL-RDF and have no links to annotation vocabularies. In this work, the ITTB annotation is linked to the OLiA ontologies.

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 Treebanks Knowledge graphs & ontologies Latin

 Institutions

🎓Università Cattolica del Sacro CuoreMilan · Italy4 works · 32 citations

Cite

Cite as Francesco Mambrini, Marco Passarotti, Giovanni Moretti and Matteo Pellegrini. 2022. The Index Thomisticus Treebank as Linked Data in the LiLa Knowledge Base. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference.

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

@inproceedings{mambrini2022index,
  title = {{The Index Thomisticus Treebank as Linked Data in the LiLa Knowledge Base}},
  author = {Francesco Mambrini, Marco Passarotti, Giovanni Moretti and Matteo Pellegrini},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference},
  year = {2022},
  doi = {10.63317/2o9mccqqf2ch},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.63317/2o9mccqqf2ch}
}

References

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

  1. Bamman, D. and Crane, G. (2011). The ancient greek and latin dependency treebanks. In Language Technology for Cultural Heritage. Bohmová, A., Hajič, J., Hajičová, E., and Hladká, B. (2001). The Prague Dependency Treebank: A Three-Level Annotation Scenario. In Anne Abeillé, editor, Treebanks: Building and Using Syntactically Annotated Corpora, pages 103–127. ↗
  2. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. Buitelaar, P., Cimiano, P., McCrae, J., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., and Declerck, T. (2011). Ontology Lexicalization: The lemon Perspective. In Proceedings of the Workshops-9th International Conference on Terminology and Artificial Intelligence (TIA 2011), pages 33–36. find
  3. Cecchini, F. M., Passarotti, M., Marongiu, P., and Zeman, D. (2018). Challenges in Converting the Index Thomisticus Treebank into Universal Dependencies. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Universal Dependencies (UDW 2018), pages 27–36, Brussels, Belgium, November. Association for Computational Linguistics. ↗
  4. Cecchini, F. M., Sprugnoli, R., Moretti, G., and Passarotti, M. (2020a). UDante: First Steps Towards the Universal Dependencies Treebank of Dante’s *Figure 4: Syntactic dependents of a 3-argument verb in the ITTB, original and UD version.* Latin Works. In Seventh Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1–7, Bologna. find
  5. CEUR-WS.org. Cecchini, F. M., Korkiakangas, T., and Passarotti, M. (2020b). A new latin treebank for universal dependencies: Charters between ancient latin and romance languages. In Proceedings of The 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 933– 942. Chiarcos, C. and Fäth, C. (2017). CoNLL-RDF: Linked corpora done in an NLP-friendly way. In International Conference on Language, Data and Knowledge, pages 74–88. find
  6. Springer. Chiarcos, C. and Sukhareva, M. (2015a). OLiA – Ontologies of Linguistic Annotation. Semantic Web, 6(4):379–386. find
  7. Chiarcos, C. and Sukhareva, M. (2015b). Olia – ontologies of linguistic annotation. Semantic Web, 6(4):379–386. ↗
  8. Chiarcos, C., Hellmann, S., and Nordhoff, S. (2012). Linking Linguistic Resources: Examples from the Open Linguistics Working Group. In Christian Chiarcos, et al., editors, Linked Data in Linguistics: Representing and Connecting Language Data and Language Metadata, pages 201–216. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Chiarcos, C., Fäth, C., and Abromeit, F. (2020). Annotation Interoperability for the Post-ISOCat Era. In Proceedings of the 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 5668–5677, Marseille, France, May. European Language Resources Association. Chiarcos, C., Ionov, M., Glaser, L., and Fäth, C. (2021). An Ontology for CoNLL-RDF: Formal Data Structures for TSV Formats in Language Technology. In Dagmar Gromann, et al., editors, Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Language, Data and Knowledge (LDK 2021), pages 20:1–20:14, Dagstuhl. Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik. ↗
  9. Chiarcos, C. (2012). POWLA: Modeling Linguistic Corpora in OWL/DL. In Elena Simperl, et al., editors, The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 225–239, Berlin, Heidelberg. find
  10. Springer. Cimiano, P., Chiarcos, C., McCrae, J. P., and Gracia, J. (2020). find
  11. Linguistic Linked Data: Representation, Generation and Applications. Springer, Cham. Haug, D. T. and Jøhndal, M. (2008). Creating a parallel treebank of the old indo-european bible translations. In Proceedings of the second workshop on language technology for cultural heritage data (LaTeCH 2008), pages 27–34. Hellmann, S., Lehmann, J., Auer, S., and Brümmer, M. (2013). Integrating NLP Using Linked Data. In Harith Alani, et al., editors, The Semantic Web – ISWC 2013, pages 98–113, Berlin, Heidelberg. find
  12. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Korkiakangas, T. (2017). Spelling variation in historical text corpora: The case of early medieval documentary Latin. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 33(3):575–591, 11. find
  13. Lassila, O. and Swick, R. R. (1998). Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification. find
  14. Mambrini, F. and Passarotti, M. (2019). Linked Open Treebanks. Interlinking Syntactically Annotated Corpora in the LiLa Knowledge Base of Linguistic Resources for Latin. In Proceedings of the 18th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (TLT, SyntaxFest 2019), pages 74– 81, Paris. Association for Computational Linguistics. find
  15. Mambrini, F., Passarotti, M., Litta, E., and Moretti, G. (2021). Interlinking Valency Frames and WordNet Synsets in the LiLa Knowledge Base of Linguistic Resources for Latin. In Mehwish Alam, et al., editors, Further with Knowledge Graphs. Studies on the Semantic Web 53, Amsterdam, August. ↗
  16. IOS Press. McCrae, J., Bosque-Gil, J., Gracia, J., Buitelaar, P., and Cimiano, P. (2017). The OntoLex-Lemon Model: Development and Applications. In Proceedings of eLex, pages 587–597. find
  17. Nivre, J., De Marneffe, M.-C., Ginter, F., Goldberg, Y., Hajic, J., Manning, C. D., McDonald, R., Petrov, S., Pyysalo, S., Silveira, N., et al. (2016). Universal dependencies v1: A multilingual treebank collection. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16), pages 1659–1666. our card
  18. Passarotti, M., Budassi, M., Litta, E., and Ruffolo, P. (2017). The Lemlat 3.0 Package for Morphological Analysis of Latin. In Proceedings of the NoDaLiDa 2017 Workshop on Processing Historical Language, pages 24–31. find
  19. Passarotti, M., Mambrini, F., Franzini, G., Cecchini, F. M., Litta, E., Moretti, G., Ruffolo, P., and Sprugnoli, R. (2020). Interlinking through Lemmas. The Lexical Collection of the LiLa Knowledge Base of Linguistic Resources for Latin. Studi e Saggi Linguistici, 58:177–212. find
  20. Passarotti, M. (2019). The Project of the Index Thomisticus Treebank. In Monica Berti, editor, Digital Classical Philology. Ancient Greek and Latin in the Digital Revolution, pages 299–319. ↗
  21. De Gruyter, Berlin. Passos, G. P. (2018). A formal specification for syntactic annotation and its usage in corpus development and maintenance: a case study in universal dependencies. PhD Thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, August. Accepted: 2020-10-02T22:02:34Z Publisher: Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. find
  22. Ponti, E. M. and Passarotti, M. (2016). Differentia compositionem facit. a slower-paced and reliable parser for Latin. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16), pages 683–688, Portorož, Slovenia, May. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). find
  23. Thompson, S. A. (1997). Discourse Motivations for the Core-Oblique Distinction as a Language Universal. In Akio Kamio, editor, Studies in Language Companion Series, volume 36, pages 59–82. Benjamins, Amsterdam. 9. ↗
  24. Language Resource References Bamman, D. et al. (2017). Perseus Latin Dependency Treebank. The Perseus Project, Tufts University, ISLRN 578-883-113-369-6. find
  25. Cecchini, F. et al. (2021). UD Latin UDante. LINDAT / CLARIAH-CZ, http://hdl.handle.net/1 1234/1-4611. ↗
  26. Haug, D. et al. (2018). The PROIEL Treebank. http://proiel.github.io/. ↗
  27. Johnson, K.P. et al. (2021). The Classical Language Toolkit (CLTK). http://cltk.org/, v. 1.0.15. ↗
  28. Korkiakangas, T. (2020). Late Latin Charter Treebank 2 (LLCT2). Zenodo, DOI:10.5281/zenodo.3633614, v. 1.2. ↗
  29. Passarotti, M. et al. (2020). LEMLAT 3.0. CIRCSE, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, and Zenodo, DOI:10.5281/zenodo.1492134, v. 3.0. ↗
  30. Passarotti, M. et al. (2021). Index Thomisticus Treebank. CIRCSE, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, ISLRN 105-545-284-528-2. Straka, M., and Straková, J. (2021). UDPipe. LIN-DAT / CLARIAH-CZ, http://hdl.handle.net/11234/1-1702. ↗
  31. Zeman, D. et al. (2021). Universal Dependencies (UD) 2.9. LINDAT / CLARIAH-CZ, http://hd l.handle.net/11234/1-4611, v. 2.9. ↗

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/mambrini-2022-index-thomisticus-treebank-as-linked/