10 research outputs found
Task-based parser output combination : workflow and infrastructure
This dissertation introduces the method of task-based parser output combination as a device to enhance the reliability of automatically generated syntactic information for further processing tasks.
Parsers, i.e. tools generating syntactic analyses, are usually based on reference data. Typically these are modern news texts. However, the data relevant for applications or tasks beyond parsing often differs from this standard domain, or only specific phenomena from the syntactic analysis are actually relevant for further processing. In these cases, the reliability of the parsing output might deviate essentially from the expected outcome on standard news text.
Studies for several levels of analysis in natural language processing have shown that combining systems from the same analysis level outperforms the best involved single system. This is due to different error distributions of the involved systems which can be exploited, e.g. in a majority voting approach.
In other words: for an effective combination, the involved systems have to be sufficiently different.
In these combination studies, usually the complete analyses are combined and evaluated. However, to be able to combine the analyses completely, a full mapping of their structures and tagsets has to be found. The need for a full mapping either restricts the degree to which the participating systems are allowed to differ or it results in information loss. Moreover, the evaluation of the combined complete analyses does not reflect the reliability achieved in the analysis of the specific aspects needed to resolve a given task.
This work presents an abstract workflow which can be instantiated based on the respective task and the available parsers. The approach focusses on the task-relevant aspects and aims at increasing the reliability of their analysis. Moreover, this focus allows a combination of more diverging systems, since no full mapping of the structures and tagsets from the single systems is needed. The usability of this method is also increased by focussing on the output of the parsers: It is not necessary for the users to reengineer the tools. Instead, off-the-shelf parsers and parsers for which no configuration options or sources are available to the users can be included. Based on this, the method is applicable to a broad range of applications. For instance, it can be applied to tasks from the growing field of Digital Humanities, where the focus is often on tasks different from syntactic analysis
Harmonization and Merging of two Italian Dependency Treebanks
The paper describes the methodology which is currently being defined for the construction of a "Merged Italian Dependency Treebank'' (MIDT) starting from already existing resources. In particular, it reports the results of a case study carried out on two available dependency treebanks, i.e. TUT and ISST--TANL. The issues raised during the comparison of the annotation schemes underlying the two treebanks are discussed and investigated with a particular emphasis on the definition of a set of linguistic categories to be used as a "bridge'' between the specific schemes. As an encoding format, the CoNLL de facto standard is used
Converting Italian Treebanks: Towards an Italian Stanford Dependency Treebank
The paper addresses the challenge of converting MIDT, an existing dependencybased Italian treebank resulting from the
harmonization and merging of smaller resources, into the Stanford Dependencies annotation formalism, with the final aim of constructing a standardâcompliant resource for the Italian language. Achieved results include a methodology for converting treebank annotations belonging to the same dependencyâbased family, the Italian Stanford Dependency Treebank (ISDT), and an Italian localization of the
Stanford Dependency scheme
Integrating Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Language Resources Using Linked Data
This thesis is a compendium of scientific works and engineering
specifications that have been contributed to a large community of
stakeholders to be copied, adapted, mixed, built upon and exploited in
any way possible to achieve a common goal: Integrating Natural Language
Processing (NLP) and Language Resources Using Linked Data
The explosion of information technology in the last two decades has led
to a substantial growth in quantity, diversity and complexity of
web-accessible linguistic data. These resources become even more useful
when linked with each other and the last few years have seen the
emergence of numerous approaches in various disciplines concerned with
linguistic resources and NLP tools. It is the challenge of our time to
store, interlink and exploit this wealth of data accumulated in more
than half a century of computational linguistics, of empirical,
corpus-based study of language, and of computational lexicography in all
its heterogeneity.
The vision of the Giant Global Graph (GGG) was conceived by Tim
Berners-Lee aiming at connecting all data on the Web and allowing to
discover new relations between this openly-accessible data. This vision
has been pursued by the Linked Open Data (LOD) community, where the
cloud of published datasets comprises 295 data repositories and more
than 30 billion RDF triples (as of September 2011).
RDF is based on globally unique and accessible URIs and it was
specifically designed to establish links between such URIs (or
resources). This is captured in the Linked Data paradigm that postulates
four rules: (1) Referred entities should be designated by URIs, (2)
these URIs should be resolvable over HTTP, (3) data should be
represented by means of standards such as RDF, (4) and a resource should
include links to other resources.
Although it is difficult to precisely identify the reasons for the
success of the LOD effort, advocates generally argue that open licenses
as well as open access are key enablers for the growth of such a network
as they provide a strong incentive for collaboration and contribution by
third parties. In his keynote at BNCOD 2011, Chris Bizer argued that
with RDF the overall data integration effort can be âsplit between data
publishers, third parties, and the data consumerâ, a claim that can be
substantiated by observing the evolution of many large data sets
constituting the LOD cloud.
As written in the acknowledgement section, parts of this thesis has
received numerous feedback from other scientists, practitioners and
industry in many different ways. The main contributions of this thesis
are summarized here:
Part I â Introduction and Background.
During his keynote at the Language Resource and Evaluation Conference in
2012, Sören Auer stressed the decentralized, collaborative, interlinked
and interoperable nature of the Web of Data. The keynote provides strong
evidence that Semantic Web technologies such as Linked Data are on its
way to become main stream for the representation of language resources.
The jointly written companion publication for the keynote was later
extended as a book chapter in The Peopleâs Web Meets NLP and serves as
the basis for âIntroductionâ and âBackgroundâ, outlining some stages of
the Linked Data publication and refinement chain. Both chapters stress
the importance of open licenses and open access as an enabler for
collaboration, the ability to interlink data on the Web as a key feature
of RDF as well as provide a discussion about scalability issues and
decentralization. Furthermore, we elaborate on how conceptual
interoperability can be achieved by (1) re-using vocabularies, (2) agile
ontology development, (3) meetings to refine and adapt ontologies and
(4) tool support to enrich ontologies and match schemata.
Part II - Language Resources as Linked Data.
âLinked Data in Linguisticsâ and âNLP & DBpedia, an Upward Knowledge
Acquisition Spiralâ summarize the results of the Linked Data in
Linguistics (LDL) Workshop in 2012 and the NLP & DBpedia Workshop in
2013 and give a preview of the MLOD special issue. In total, five
proceedings â three published at CEUR (OKCon 2011, WoLE 2012, NLP &
DBpedia 2013), one Springer book (Linked Data in Linguistics, LDL 2012)
and one journal special issue (Multilingual Linked Open Data, MLOD to
appear) â have been (co-)edited to create incentives for scientists to
convert and publish Linked Data and thus to contribute open and/or
linguistic data to the LOD cloud. Based on the disseminated call for
papers, 152 authors contributed one or more accepted submissions to our
venues and 120 reviewers were involved in peer-reviewing.
âDBpedia as a Multilingual Language Resourceâ and âLeveraging the
Crowdsourcing of Lexical Resources for Bootstrapping a Linguistic Linked
Data Cloudâ contain this thesisâ contribution to the DBpedia Project in
order to further increase the size and inter-linkage of the LOD Cloud
with lexical-semantic resources. Our contribution comprises extracted
data from Wiktionary (an online, collaborative dictionary similar to
Wikipedia) in more than four languages (now six) as well as
language-specific versions of DBpedia, including a quality assessment of
inter-language links between Wikipedia editions and internationalized
content negotiation rules for Linked Data. In particular the work
described in created the foundation for a DBpedia Internationalisation
Committee with members from over 15 different languages with the common
goal to push DBpedia as a free and open multilingual language resource.
Part III - The NLP Interchange Format (NIF).
âNIF 2.0 Core Specificationâ, âNIF 2.0 Resources and Architectureâ and
âEvaluation and Related Workâ constitute one of the main contribution of
this thesis. The NLP Interchange Format (NIF) is an RDF/OWL-based format
that aims to achieve interoperability between Natural Language
Processing (NLP) tools, language resources and annotations. The core
specification is included in and describes which URI schemes and RDF
vocabularies must be used for (parts of) natural language texts and
annotations in order to create an RDF/OWL-based interoperability layer
with NIF built upon Unicode Code Points in Normal Form C. In , classes
and properties of the NIF Core Ontology are described to formally define
the relations between text, substrings and their URI schemes. contains
the evaluation of NIF.
In a questionnaire, we asked questions to 13 developers using NIF. UIMA,
GATE and Stanbol are extensible NLP frameworks and NIF was not yet able
to provide off-the-shelf NLP domain ontologies for all possible domains,
but only for the plugins used in this study. After inspecting the
software, the developers agreed however that NIF is adequate enough to
provide a generic RDF output based on NIF using literal objects for
annotations. All developers were able to map the internal data structure
to NIF URIs to serialize RDF output (Adequacy). The development effort
in hours (ranging between 3 and 40 hours) as well as the number of code
lines (ranging between 110 and 445) suggest, that the implementation of
NIF wrappers is easy and fast for an average developer. Furthermore the
evaluation contains a comparison to other formats and an evaluation of
the available URI schemes for web annotation.
In order to collect input from the wide group of stakeholders, a total
of 16 presentations were given with extensive discussions and feedback,
which has lead to a constant improvement of NIF from 2010 until 2013.
After the release of NIF (Version 1.0) in November 2011, a total of 32
vocabulary employments and implementations for different NLP tools and
converters were reported (8 by the (co-)authors, including Wiki-link
corpus, 13 by people participating in our survey and 11 more, of
which we have heard). Several roll-out meetings and tutorials were held
(e.g. in Leipzig and Prague in 2013) and are planned (e.g. at LREC
2014).
Part IV - The NLP Interchange Format in Use.
âUse Cases and Applications for NIFâ and âPublication of Corpora using
NIFâ describe 8 concrete instances where NIF has been successfully used.
One major contribution in is the usage of NIF as the recommended RDF
mapping in the Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) 2.0 W3C standard
and the conversion algorithms from ITS to NIF and back. One outcome
of the discussions in the standardization meetings and telephone
conferences for ITS 2.0 resulted in the conclusion there was no
alternative RDF format or vocabulary other than NIF with the required
features to fulfill the working group charter. Five further uses of NIF
are described for the Ontology of Linguistic Annotations (OLiA), the
RDFaCE tool, the Tiger Corpus Navigator, the OntosFeeder and
visualisations of NIF using the RelFinder tool. These 8 instances
provide an implemented proof-of-concept of the features of NIF.
starts with describing the conversion and hosting of the huge Google
Wikilinks corpus with 40 million annotations for 3 million web sites.
The resulting RDF dump contains 477 million triples in a 5.6 GB
compressed dump file in turtle syntax. describes how NIF can be used to
publish extracted facts from news feeds in the RDFLiveNews tool as
Linked Data.
Part V - Conclusions.
provides lessons learned for NIF, conclusions and an outlook on future
work. Most of the contributions are already summarized above. One
particular aspect worth mentioning is the increasing number of
NIF-formated corpora for Named Entity Recognition (NER) that have come
into existence after the publication of the main NIF paper Integrating
NLP using Linked Data at ISWC 2013. These include the corpora converted
by Steinmetz, Knuth and Sack for the NLP & DBpedia workshop and an
OpenNLP-based CoNLL converter by BrĂŒmmer. Furthermore, we are aware of
three LREC 2014 submissions that leverage NIF: NIF4OGGD - NLP
Interchange Format for Open German Governmental Data, N^3 â A Collection
of Datasets for Named Entity Recognition and Disambiguation in the NLP
Interchange Format and Global Intelligent Content: Active Curation of
Language Resources using Linked Data as well as an early implementation
of a GATE-based NER/NEL evaluation framework by Dojchinovski and Kliegr.
Further funding for the maintenance, interlinking and publication of
Linguistic Linked Data as well as support and improvements of NIF is
available via the expiring LOD2 EU project, as well as the CSA EU
project called LIDER, which started in November 2013. Based on the
evidence of successful adoption presented in this thesis, we can expect
a decent to high chance of reaching critical mass of Linked Data
technology as well as the NIF standard in the field of Natural Language
Processing and Language Resources.:CONTENTS
i introduction and background 1
1 introduction 3
1.1 Natural Language Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Open licenses, open access and collaboration . . . . . . 5
1.3 Linked Data in Linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4 NLP for and by the Semantic Web â the NLP Inter-
change Format (NIF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.5 Requirements for NLP Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.6 Overview and Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 background 15
2.1 The Working Group on Open Data in Linguistics (OWLG) 15
2.1.1 The Open Knowledge Foundation . . . . . . . . 15
2.1.2 Goals of the Open Linguistics Working Group . 16
2.1.3 Open linguistics resources, problems and chal-
lenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1.4 Recent activities and on-going developments . . 18
2.2 Technological Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3 RDF as a data model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.4 Performance and scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.5 Conceptual interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
ii language resources as linked data 25
3 linked data in linguistics 27
3.1 Lexical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2 Linguistic Corpora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3 Linguistic Knowledgebases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.4 Towards a Linguistic Linked Open Data Cloud . . . . . 32
3.5 State of the Linguistic Linked Open Data Cloud in 2012 33
3.6 Querying linked resources in the LLOD . . . . . . . . . 36
3.6.1 Enriching metadata repositories with linguistic
features (Glottolog â OLiA) . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.6.2 Enriching lexical-semantic resources with lin-
guistic information (DBpedia (â POWLA) â
OLiA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4 DBpedia as a multilingual language resource:
the case of the greek dbpedia edition. 39
4.1 Current state of the internationalization effort . . . . . 40
4.2 Language-specific design of DBpedia resource identifiers 41
4.3 Inter-DBpedia linking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.4 Outlook on DBpedia Internationalization . . . . . . . . 44
5 leveraging the crowdsourcing of lexical resources
for bootstrapping a linguistic linked data cloud 47
5.1 Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.2 Problem Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.2.1 Processing Wiki Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.2.2 Wiktionary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.2.3 Wiki-scale Data Extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.3 Design and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.3.1 Extraction Templates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.3.2 Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.3.3 Language Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.3.4 Schema Mediation by Annotation with lemon . 58
5.4 Resulting Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.5 Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.6 Discussion and Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.6.1 Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.6.2 Open Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6 nlp & dbpedia, an upward knowledge acquisition
spiral 63
6.1 Knowledge acquisition and structuring . . . . . . . . . 64
6.2 Representation of knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.3 NLP tasks and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.3.1 Named Entity Recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.3.2 Relation extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.3.3 Question Answering over Linked Data . . . . . 67
6.4 Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.4.1 Gold and silver standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
iii the nlp interchange format (nif) 73
7 nif 2.0 core specification 75
7.1 Conformance checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
7.2 Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
7.2.1 Definition of Strings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
7.2.2 Representation of Document Content with the
nif:Context Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
7.3 Extension of NIF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
7.3.1 Part of Speech Tagging with OLiA . . . . . . . . 83
7.3.2 Named Entity Recognition with ITS 2.0, DBpe-
dia and NERD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
7.3.3 lemon and Wiktionary2RDF . . . . . . . . . . . 86
8 nif 2.0 resources and architecture 89
8.1 NIF Core Ontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
8.1.1 Logical Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
8.2 Workflows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
8.2.1 Access via REST Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
8.2.2 NIF Combinator Demo . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
92
8.3 Granularity Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
93
8.4 Further URI Schemes for NIF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
95
8.4.1 Context-Hash-based URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . .
99
9 evaluation and related work 101
9.1 Questionnaire and Developers Study for NIF 1.0 . . . . 101
9.2 Qualitative Comparison with other Frameworks and
Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
9.3 URI Stability Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
9.4 Related URI Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
iv the nlp interchange format in use 109
10 use cases and applications for nif 111
10.1 Internationalization Tag Set 2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
10.1.1 ITS2NIF and NIF2ITS conversion . . . . . . . . . 112
10.2 OLiA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
10.3 RDFaCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
10.4 Tiger Corpus Navigator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
10.4.1 Tools and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
10.4.2 NLP2RDF in 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
10.4.3 Linguistic Ontologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
10.4.4 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
10.4.5 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
10.4.6 Related Work and Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
10.5 OntosFeeder â a Versatile Semantic Context Provider
for Web Content Authoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
10.5.1 Feature Description and User Interface Walk-
through . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
10.5.2 Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
10.5.3 Embedding Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
10.5.4 Related Work and Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 135
10.6 RelFinder: Revealing Relationships in RDF Knowledge
Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
10.6.1 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
10.6.2 Disambiguation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
10.6.3 Searching for Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
10.6.4 Graph Visualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
10.6.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
11 publication of corpora using nif 143
11.1 Wikilinks Corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
11.1.1 Description of the corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
11.1.2 Quantitative Analysis with Google Wikilinks Cor-
pus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
11.2 RDFLiveNews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
11.2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
11.2.2 Mapping to RDF and Publication on the Web of
Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
v conclusions 149
12 lessons learned, conclusions and future work 151
12.1 Lessons Learned for NIF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
12.2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
12.3 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Proceedings
Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop
on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories.
Editors: Markus Dickinson, Kaili MĂŒĂŒrisep and Marco Passarotti.
NEALT Proceedings Series, Vol. 9 (2010), 268 pages.
© 2010 The editors and contributors.
Published by
Northern European Association for Language
Technology (NEALT)
http://omilia.uio.no/nealt .
Electronically published at
Tartu University Library (Estonia)
http://hdl.handle.net/10062/15891
Report on the 2015 NSF Workshop on Unified Annotation Tooling
On March 30 & 31, 2015, an international group of twenty-three researchers with expertise in linguistic annotation convened in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida to discuss problems with and potential solutions for the state of linguistic annotation tooling. The participants comprised 14 researchers from the U.S. and 9 from outside the U.S., with 7 countries and 4 continents represented, and hailed from fields and specialties including computational linguistics, artificial intelligence, speech processing, multi-modal data processing, clinical & medical natural language processing, linguistics, documentary linguistics, sign-language linguistics, corpus linguistics, and the digital humanities. The motivating problem of the workshop was the balkanization of annotation tooling, namely, that even though linguistic annotation requires sophisticated tool support to efficiently generate high-quality data, the landscape of tools for the field is fractured, incompatible, inconsistent, and lacks key capabilities. The overall goal of the workshop was to chart the way forward, centering on five key questions: (1) What are the problems with current tool landscape? (2) What are the possible benefits of solving some or all of these problems? (3) What capabilities are most needed? (4) How should we go about implementing these capabilities? And, (5) How should we ensure longevity and sustainability of the solution? I surveyed the participants before their arrival, which provided significant raw material for ideas, and the workshop discussion itself resulted in identification of ten specific classes of problems, five sets of most-needed capabilities. Importantly, we identified annotation project managers in computational linguistics as the key recipients and users of any solution, thereby succinctly addressing questions about the scope and audience of potential solutions. We discussed management and sustainability of potential solutions at length. The participants agreed on sixteen recommendations for future work. This technical report contains a detailed discussion of all these topics, a point-by-point review of the discussion in the workshop as it unfolded, detailed information on the participants and their expertise, and the summarized data from the surveys
Natural Language Processing: Integration of Automatic and Manual Analysis
There is a current trend to combine natural language analysis with research questions from the humanities. This requires an integration of automatic analysis with manual analysis, e.g. to develop a theory behind the analysis, to test the theory against a corpus, to generate training data for automatic analysis based on machine learning algorithms, and to evaluate the quality of the results from automatic analysis. Manual analysis is traditionally the domain of linguists, philosophers, and researchers from other humanities disciplines, who are often not expert programmers. Automatic analysis, on the other hand, is traditionally done by expert programmers, such as computer scientists and more recently computational linguists. It is important to bring these communities, their tools, and data closer together, to produce analysis of a higher quality with less effort. However, promising cooperations involving manual and automatic analysis, e.g. for the purpose of analyzing a large corpus, are hindered by many problems:
- No comprehensive set of interoperable automatic analysis components is available.
- Assembling automatic analysis components into workflows is too complex.
- Automatic analysis tools, exploration tools, and annotation editors are not interoperable.
- Workflows are not portable between computers.
- Workflows are not easily deployable to a compute cluster.
- There are no adequate tools for the selective annotation of large corpora.
- In automatic analysis, annotation type systems are predefined, but manual annotation requires customizability.
- Implementing new interoperable automatic analysis components is too complex.
- Workflows and components are not sufficiently debuggable and refactorable.
- Workflows that change dynamically via parametrization are not readily supported.
- The user has no control over workflows that rely on expert skills from a different domain, undocumented knowledge, or third-party infrastructures, e.g. web services.
In cooperation with researchers from the humanities, we develop innovative technical solutions and designs to facilitate the use of automatic analysis and to promote the integration of manual and automatic analysis. To address these issues, we set foundations in four areas:
- Usability is improved by reducing the complexity of the APIs for building workflows and creating custom components, improving the handling of resources required by such components, and setting up auto-configuration mechanisms.
- Reproducibility is improved through a concept for self-contained, portable analysis components and workflows combined with a declarative modeling approach for dynamic parametrized workflows, that facilitates avoiding unnecessary auxiliary manual steps in automatic workflows.
- Flexibility is achieved by providing an extensive collection of interoperable automatic analysis components. We also compare annotation type systems used by different automatic analysis components to locate design patterns that allow for customization when used in manual analysis tasks.
- Interactivity is achieved through a novel "annotation-by-query" process combining corpus search with annotation in a multi-user scenario. The process is supported by a web-based tool.
We demonstrate the adequacy of our concepts through examples which represent whole classes of research problems. Additionally, we integrated all our concepts into existing open-source projects, or we implemented and published them within new open-source projects