Sign in or 
Cyberling Wiki Discussion Forum
Categories : General Discussion
General discussion around all things related to this site.
General Discussion
General discussion around all things related to this site.
Share this
Discussion Spotlight
|
|
| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeborahAnderson | Another funding source: UNESCO | 0 | Aug 31 2009, 5:02 PM EDT by DeborahAnderson | ||||
|
Thread started: Aug 31 2009, 5:02 PM EDT
Watch
I wanted to mention that another potential source of funding is UNESCO. I have received some funding via Initiative B@bel, which seems to be part of "Multilingualism in Cyberspace" program in UNESCO. I have found those involved at Initiative B@bel to be very dedicated, though UNESCO does seem to be a bit slow in processing paperwork (but no more so than the large US-based agencies).
|
|||||||
| EmilyMBender | What might move to *pedia, where else might things go? | 1 | Aug 24 2009, 9:06 AM EDT by mebeckman | ||||
|
Thread started: Jul 30 2009, 7:37 PM EDT
Watch
It seems to me that some of the information we are collecting is more stable while other aspects are more fluid. In the more stable category are things like lists of resources (tools, standards). This is the kind of encyclopedic information that I believe could be well-situated on wikipedia or glottopedia. In the more fluid category are on-going discussions about privacy and ethics, action items or recommendations to funding bodies and scholarly organizations, and announcements of new projects/on-going efforts. This more fluid type of information doesn't seem to belong on wikipedia (and probably not glottopedia either), but I believe it needs a home, and a visible one at that. That home could be this wiki (perhaps exported to different software and physically housed at a different site), or it could be part of something else (LINGUISTList? Other suggestions?). I think that the home for the fluid information needs to have a hook, or a reason for people to frequent it. I think a multi-authored blog on topics related to cyberinfrastructure for linguistics would be ideal for that function, and am interested in feedback on this idea.
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| hdry | Cyberling materials | 0 | Aug 18 2009, 9:58 AM EDT by hdry | ||||
|
Thread started: Aug 18 2009, 9:58 AM EDT
Watch
Hi, Emily,
I just read your message, with the suggestion that the information could go on LINGUIST List. And I wanted to say that we would be happy to host the info, or the blog, as the case may be. We already have the E-MELD workshop proceedings on our site, and the proceedings of the TILR workshop (Toward the Interoperability of Language Resources), as well as the GOLD Community site. So we could provide links from these sites to the Cyberling materials and perhaps increase traffic. Just a thought. But please let me know if there are other ways we might help with this initiative. |
||||||
| JeremyKahn | a wikification (whitepaperification?) of the talk I gave | 0 | Aug 14 2009, 1:57 AM EDT by JeremyKahn | ||||
|
Thread started: Aug 14 2009, 1:57 AM EDT
Watch
At the request of some other members of my group ("tools"), I have roughly rewritten the final talk I gave at the end of the workshop into a stand-alone document (manifesto? it does have sort of a What Is To Be Done nature to it).
comments and edits are welcome, of course. suggestions, clarifications, details, what have you. it's a wiki! |
||||||
| mebeckman | record of questions, etc., at open panels? | 1 | Jul 23 2009, 10:20 PM EDT by danmccloy | ||||
|
Thread started: Jul 20 2009, 8:22 AM EDT
Watch
Would it be possible to have the wiki include (perhaps as a wiki page) a record of the questions that the moderators posed to the members of each of the three public panels? Ideally, this record would be in such a format that each of the panelists could also then post to it a short summary of their responses to each of the questions, perhaps in a format that is conducive to starting threads that will recreate some of the interaction with the audience.
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| danmccloy | too much for one page? | 0 | Jul 23 2009, 10:13 PM EDT by danmccloy | ||||
|
Thread started: Jul 23 2009, 10:13 PM EDT
Watch
It may be prudent to split this into multiple pages going forward. However, I think for the moment these should remain all in one place, so that duplicate information can be more easily spotted, and so that different ways of grouping the information can be more easily noticed.
|
||||||
| haspelmath | DoD and DARPA funding | 0 | Jul 21 2009, 12:56 AM EDT by haspelmath | ||||
|
Thread started: Jul 21 2009, 12:56 AM EDT
Watch
The outline of the preliminary report mentions "DARPA" and "DoD" as possible funding sources. Since the U.S. Department of "Defense" has been responsible for some of the world's worst criminal violence over the last decade, I consider it morally unacceptable to collaborate with it, and I think scientists should dissociate themselves from this organization. In fact, the recommendation is in direct conflict with the recently published LSA Ethics Statement ("Linguists should do everything in their power to ensure that their research poses no threat to the well-
being of research participants." Selling research on languages -- Pashto was mentioned during the discussion on Sunday -- to the DoD may pose a direct threat to the speech community.). |
||||||
| EmilyMBender | Another dimension of quality of standards | 1 | Jul 20 2009, 10:25 AM EDT by mebeckman | ||||
|
|
Thread started: Jul 19 2009, 5:19 PM EDT
Watch
From the perspective of WG7, another dimension to consider when evaluating the quality of a standard is how it fits in to the overall ecology of standards. Is it connected to other relevant standards? Is it approved by/submitted to ISO?
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| mebeckman | some other things we'd like you to consider adding to your page ... | 1 | Jul 19 2009, 11:46 PM EDT by bill_byrne | ||||
|
|
Thread started: Jul 18 2009, 6:37 PM EDT
Watch
sections on needed tools and existing tools, from the working group on annotation standards:
Open source toolkits for making tools for checking well-formedness of annotations (e.g., CDET at http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~jan/projects/CDET/). Open source tools for automating some aspects of some types of annotation, such as ASR-based alignment of segmental transcription. Open source toolkits for building translations between annotations and importing from data in other formats (e.g., NLTK shoebox/toolbox module; Scott Farrar's tool for translating Praat IPA into Unicode IPA). Tools for aligning time stamps for annotations of the audio built in, say, Praat, with the time stamps for annotations of the video built in, say, ELAN.
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| pkaustin | social sciences example | 0 | Jul 19 2009, 1:09 PM EDT by pkaustin | ||||
|
Thread started: Jul 19 2009, 1:09 PM EDT
Watch
have a look at the Electronic Cultural Atlas Initiative -- http://ecai.org/about/aboutecai.html
"a global consortium of people who share the vision of creating a distributed virtual library of cultural information with a time and place interface." |
||||||
| nancyide | Please look at LAF/GrAF | 0 | Jul 18 2009, 12:31 PM EDT by nancyide | ||||
|
Thread started: Jul 18 2009, 12:31 PM EDT
Watch
I would like to ask you to have a look at the Linguistic Annotation Framework, which provides a graph-based "pivot format" which is intended to serve as the lingua franca for annotations schemes (in terms of form, not content). The idea is that everyone uses his/her own format, provided it conforms to an abstract data model, and then there is a tool that can transform this into the generic graph format (GrAF). In this form, annotations can be easily merged and compared, and -- most interestingly for your group -- transduced to any other format that a given tool needs. Or, one would assume, someday tools might all use GrAF as input. GrAF is designed to be perfectly generic, and has been shown to be able to handle all kinds of annotations. We already have "Proff of concept" tools to transduce many formats into GrAF and tools to export GrAF to a wide variety of formats.
Even if you do not use LAF/GrAF itself, please look at the LAF documents (links to them on the wiki pages of Working Groups 1 and 7) because the ideas and principles are the result of 20 years of thinking on this topic. |
|||||||
| JeremyKahn | our presentation? | 0 | Jul 18 2009, 12:11 PM EDT by JeremyKahn | ||||
|
|
Thread started: Jul 18 2009, 12:11 PM EDT
Watch
issues we might want to mention:
at top level, three kinds of tools needed: (a) data-collection/creation, (b) data distribution, and (c) data analysis most linguistics communities tend to (at best) go from (a) to (c) directly we suggested that the 'killer app' might be one that helps us with (b) goal there is better if individual work with the distribution tool helps you with (a) and (c) thus the Flickr-for-linguists ideas |
||||||
| EmilyMBender | Cross-group discussion | 0 | Jul 16 2009, 6:43 PM EDT by EmilyMBender | ||||
|
|
Thread started: Jul 16 2009, 6:43 PM EDT
Watch
The question of organization of effort is also central to the concerns of WG7. I wanted to flag that interaction now so that we pay attention to it during the workshop this weekend.
|
||||||
| mebeckman | To what extend does this working group need to address privacy issues? | 2 | Jul 16 2009, 6:40 PM EDT by mebeckman | ||||
|
|
Thread started: Jul 14 2009, 6:18 PM EDT
Watch
In Working Group 1, we've been pondering where/how to make sure that there is a page that addresses privacy and ethical treatment of human subjects, which seems to be an issue that cross-cuts the charge to Group 2 and Group 4 as well as touching on the charge to us. Could the three groups figure out how best to make sure that this doesn't slip through the cracks between the groups?
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| ashraGurnch | Bringing about the buy-in factor for a unified standard for sign langs | 0 | Jul 15 2009, 11:32 PM EDT by ashraGurnch | ||||
|
Thread started: Jul 15 2009, 11:32 PM EDT
Watch
In my understanding of the Cyberling objectives, part of our tasks is to communicate with the community of users the importance of the cyberlinguistic infrastructure for their and others' work, before we can really sit down and build the infrastructure. To my knowledge, existing sign writing and annotation systems are neither popular with Deaf communities nor among sign language linguists. So the task of creating a unified standard is a difficult task in itself, made more challenging by the fact that the many opaque issues it raises serve to cloud its target community of practice from seeing its benefits.
My background is not in annotation standards, so my question is primarily for those with backgrounds in annotation conventions and frameworks. How was the buy-in gotten for you?
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Keyword tags:
annotation standard
buy-in
community of users
sign language
|
||||||
| mebeckman | standards for ethical treatment of human subjects | 1 | Jul 15 2009, 10:49 AM EDT by alexispalmer | ||||
|
|
Thread started: Jul 14 2009, 6:18 PM EDT
Watch
In Working Group 1, we've been pondering where/how to make sure that there is a page that addresses privacy and ethical treatment of human subjects, which seems to be an issue that cross-cuts the charge to Group 2 and Group 4 as well as touching on the charge to us. Could we figure out how best to make sure that this doesn't slip through the cracks between the groups?
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| mebeckman | some applications to add? | 5 | Jul 14 2009, 3:18 AM EDT by robert_forkel | ||||
|
|
Thread started: Jul 12 2009, 7:48 PM EDT
Watch
Here are some things that I would think of as killer apps in my corner of language:
R (http://www.r-project.org/) and the sub-communities and packages related to linguistics research that it has enabled, such as Emu (http://emu.sourceforge.net/), as well as new approaches to teaching statistics and numerical reasoning to linguists (see, e.g., http://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/~vasishth/SFLS.html and http://www.ualberta.ca/~baayen/#statistics) WebExp (http://www.webexp.info/) and related applications facilitated by languages such as Java, Python, etc. Praat (praat.org) for the way that it is free and very easy for even high school students to learn how to use
Show Last Reply
|
||||||
| robert_forkel | personal wishlist | 1 | Jul 12 2009, 7:04 AM EDT by coffee001 | ||||
|
Thread started: Jun 28 2009, 4:29 PM EDT
Watch
don't know whether this page was intended to collect personal wishlists. i started using it this way, though, so let me know if this is not the idea.
Show Last Reply
|
|||||||
| coffee001 | Repository systems | 0 | Jul 12 2009, 6:55 AM EDT by coffee001 | ||||
|
Thread started: Jul 12 2009, 6:55 AM EDT
Watch
Not sure if it makes sense in this context, but www.escidoc.org and www.fedora-commons.org might be relevant in relation to long-term archiving. Not really standards, but "infrastructure", though.
|
||||||
| Koenraad | Map of locations? | 0 | Jul 11 2009, 4:39 AM EDT by Koenraad | ||||
|
Thread started: Jul 11 2009, 4:39 AM EDT
Watch
Can someone provide a campus map where the workshop locations are clearly marked?
|
||||||
