{"title":"交换格式:TBX、OLIF和其他格式","authors":"G. Thurmair","doi":"10.21248/jlcl.21.2006.81","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Th is paper tries to comment on some of the standardisation eff orts in the area of exchange formats for lexical resources. Th e fi rst family of standards was centred around terminological data, producing exchange formats like MATER/ MARTIF and TBX, based on an organisation of the data as concepts and (language-specifi c) terms. When the exchange of fully annotated lexical data came into play, standards like OLIF and MILE were proposed; they focus on the representation and the exchange of (mono- and multilingual) dictionary entries and their attributes (Thurmair/Lieske 2002). Recent developments are organised around the creation of markup frameworks, try to defi","PeriodicalId":346957,"journal":{"name":"LDV Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exchange Formats: TBX, OLIF, and Beyond\",\"authors\":\"G. Thurmair\",\"doi\":\"10.21248/jlcl.21.2006.81\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Th is paper tries to comment on some of the standardisation eff orts in the area of exchange formats for lexical resources. Th e fi rst family of standards was centred around terminological data, producing exchange formats like MATER/ MARTIF and TBX, based on an organisation of the data as concepts and (language-specifi c) terms. When the exchange of fully annotated lexical data came into play, standards like OLIF and MILE were proposed; they focus on the representation and the exchange of (mono- and multilingual) dictionary entries and their attributes (Thurmair/Lieske 2002). Recent developments are organised around the creation of markup frameworks, try to defi\",\"PeriodicalId\":346957,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LDV Forum\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LDV Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21248/jlcl.21.2006.81\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LDV Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21248/jlcl.21.2006.81","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Th is paper tries to comment on some of the standardisation eff orts in the area of exchange formats for lexical resources. Th e fi rst family of standards was centred around terminological data, producing exchange formats like MATER/ MARTIF and TBX, based on an organisation of the data as concepts and (language-specifi c) terms. When the exchange of fully annotated lexical data came into play, standards like OLIF and MILE were proposed; they focus on the representation and the exchange of (mono- and multilingual) dictionary entries and their attributes (Thurmair/Lieske 2002). Recent developments are organised around the creation of markup frameworks, try to defi
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
