[NLP2RDF] [Dbpedia-discussion] ANN: NLP Interchange Format (NIF) 1.0 Spec, Demo and Reference Implementation

[Christian Chiarcos]

Hi Michael,

>> I thought the PTB Tag for Particle was RP and not PR ?

You're right, that was a typo. Fixed it. Thank you. (Please note that
the current version is considered a draft, so there may be further
minor problems to be fixed. The official release will occur in
mid-2012.)
(@Sebastian: penn.owl in the NIF repository needs to be updated, too.)

>> How do I contact the OLiA maintainers ? I cannot find any contact
>> information
>> on http://nachhalt.sfb632.uni-potsdam.de/owl/.

Well, you got it by now ;) First paragraph, last sentence. More prominent now.

>>  http://www.netestate.de/nlp/ontology.rdf

I've also taken a look on your ontology, and your data type properties
can be rendered as OLiA object properties (e.g., agr by hasNumber and
hasPerson). As for the object properties, the current OLiA modeling
would represent these as concepts rather than properties (cf.
http://purl.org/olia/olia.owl#Head, subconcept of
http://purl.org/olia/olia-top.owl#SyntacticRole). This was necessary
because annotation schemes differ with respect to the distribution of
information between edge labels and phrase labels, and in order to
abstract from this partially arbitrary differentiation, I wanted to
have both in the same taxonomy, i.e., as objects of properties. Hence,
your object properties correspond to concepts in OLiA.

If I'm not mistaken, it is still an unsolved problem how this approach
can be brought together with NIF. In my approach to model linguistic
corpora in OWL/RDF, syntactic edges would be represented by
individuals, linked by hasSource and hasTarget properties to the nodes
they connect, and assigned an object property with the corresponding
edge label. For NIF, however, this modeling would probably be too
verbose.

@Sebastian: What is the current treatment of Stanford dependencies ?
There should be a similar problem.

All the best, and thanks for the feedback,
Christian