|
DeborahAnderson |
|
Another funding source: UNESCO
|
Group 6: Funding Models
|
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).
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
What might move to *pedia, where else might things go?
|
Discussion: Where should all this information go?
|
1 |
Aug 24 2009, 9:06 AM EDT by
|
|
|
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.
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Show Last Reply
|
|
Last Reply:
RE: What might move to *pedia, where else might things go?
By: ,
Aug 24 2009, 9:06 AM EDT
I heard many voices at the workshop suggesting that it would be good to export this wiki to different software and a different site, and if we do that it seems that building on an existing site such as glottopedia for the wiki type forum makes most sense. Could http://www.elanguage.net/ be an appropriate forum for the more fluid type of information? Or could the wiki be extended to have an associated blog-type site?
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
|
Cyberling materials
|
Discussion: Where should all this information go?
|
0 |
Aug 18 2009, 9:58 AM EDT by
|
|
|
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.
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
a wikification (whitepaperification?) of the talk I gave
|
Towards a collaboration platform for linguistics
|
0 |
Aug 14 2009, 1:57 AM EDT by
|
|
|
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!
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
record of questions, etc., at open panels?
|
Cyberling Home
|
1 |
Jul 23 2009, 10:20 PM EDT by
|
|
|
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.
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
too much for one page?
|
Existing Standards and Technologies
|
0 |
Jul 23 2009, 10:13 PM EDT by
|
|
|
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.
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
haspelmath |
|
DoD and DARPA funding
|
Group 6: Funding Models
|
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.).
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
EmilyMBender |
|
Another dimension of quality of standards
|
Group 1: Annotation 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?
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Show Last Reply
|
Last Reply:
RE: Another dimension of quality of standards
By: mebeckman,
Jul 20 2009, 10:25 AM EDT
Thanks Emily, for giving us a word to cover the matrix of issues that we have been wrestling with here, where we see tensions among different aspects of the four dimensions that we already identified as desiderata. One is the tension between aspects of "useability" and of "extensibility/adaptability" -- especially between the desirability of developing a standard early enough in the emergence of some cooperative endeavor in order to be able to (build tools that) enable efficient corpus building, and the danger of codifying so early that the annotation conventions (or the tool) enforce an analysis that delays scientific advance when the phenomena are not amenable to being conceptualized within existing ontologies. (This was the tension that Mark also noted in his comments after our report yesterday.) A second is the conflict between aspects of interoperability and extensibility/adaptability -- e.g., between what we had been calling "top-down" (or "ISO-type") and "bottom-up" (or "organic") approaches to the development of annotation standards, which we know see is another species of what Working Group 6 called "the balance between central planning and bottom-up initiative" (linking in the Wikipedia page on the metaphor of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar). If your group has thoughts about how to couch a discussion of these tensions and how to link to relevant passages of the "white paper" that y'all are writing, we would very much like to hear them!
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
|
some other things we'd like you to consider adding to your page ...
|
Group 3: Tools (existing and future "killer apps")
|
1 |
Jul 19 2009, 11:46 PM EDT by
|
|
|
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.
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
social sciences example
|
Group 5: Models From Other Fields
|
0 |
Jul 19 2009, 1:09 PM EDT by
|
|
|
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."
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
Please look at LAF/GrAF
|
notes
|
0 |
Jul 18 2009, 12:31 PM EDT by
|
|
|
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.
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
our presentation?
|
Group 3: Tools (existing and future "killer apps")
|
0 |
Jul 18 2009, 12:11 PM EDT by
|
|
|
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
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
Cross-group discussion
|
Group 6: Funding Models
|
0 |
Jul 16 2009, 6:43 PM EDT by
|
|
|
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.
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
|
|
|
|
To what extend does this working group need to address privacy issues?
|
Group 4: Protecting Data Reliability and Provenance
|
2 |
Jul 16 2009, 6:40 PM EDT by
|
|
|
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?
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Show Last Reply
|
|
Last Reply:
RE: To what extend does this working group need to address privacy issues?
By: ,
Jul 16 2009, 6:40 PM EDT
Your description of the interconnected issues was very helpful.
Why don't we try to coordinate with Group 4 sometime during Working Session I tomorrow?
Perhaps we could ask Peter Austin to take the lead on this, since he has integrated it into his course at SOAS on Technology and Language Documentation? (I'm replying to you here rather than on your group's page, in hopes that we can do that. ;-> )
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
ashraGurnch |
|
Bringing about the buy-in factor for a unified standard for sign langs
|
Group 1: Annotation Standards
|
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?
|
|
mebeckman |
|
standards for ethical treatment of human subjects
|
Group 2: Standards for Storage, Retrieval, and Search of Data
|
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?
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Show Last Reply
|
Last Reply:
RE: standards for ethical treatment of human subjects
By: alexispalmer,
Jul 15 2009, 10:49 AM EDT
Hi, yes, excellent point! Here's how I see this (extremely important) concern stretching across the three groups: first, there's the responsibility of the first acquirers/handlers of the data to straighten out privacy concerns and issues of data access/rights (not sure where this fits, actually... perhaps it's not directly a cyberinfrastructure concern?). Second, the potential need to modify transcriptions and/or annotations to address these concerns (e.g. anonymizing texts mentioning specific people? etc.) (Group 1?), and questions like whether/how to preserve the original, unmodified texts. Next, the necessity of ensuring that access restrictions due to privacy concerns are respected and enforced through the archiving and retrieval process. So that brings us into being sure that information is appropriately encoded in metadata (Group 2), and appropriately handled as data moves from individual to individual (Group 4).
Would it make sense to set aside a chunk of time to meet and work out how these fit together? Either whole groups or a couple of members from each group? Maybe sometime on Saturday?
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
|
some applications to add?
|
Group 3: Tools (existing and future "killer apps")
|
5 |
Jul 14 2009, 3:18 AM EDT by
|
|
|
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
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Show Last Reply
|
|
Last Reply:
RE: some applications to add?
By: ,
Jul 14 2009, 3:18 AM EDT
saying that infrastructure needs would go away was a bit overstating it, i admit.
what i basically wanted to say is, feel free to add these tools right on the wiki page. as non-linguist and only involved with text data so far, i'm in no position to even have an opinion about them.
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
|
personal wishlist
|
Identified Needs
|
1 |
Jul 12 2009, 7:04 AM EDT by
|
|
|
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.
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Show Last Reply
|
|
Last Reply:
RE: personal wishlist
By: ,
Jul 12 2009, 7:04 AM EDT
I think identifying community needs by starting with your own (as a linguist, developer supporting linguists, data curator etc) is a legitimate approach. We'll see what the list looks like at the end of the workshop :-)
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
|
Repository systems
|
Group 2: Standards for Storage, Retrieval, and Search of Data
|
0 |
Jul 12 2009, 6:55 AM EDT by
|
|
|
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.
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
|
|
Map of locations?
|
Workshop Schedule
|
0 |
Jul 11 2009, 4:39 AM EDT by
|
|
|
Thread started: Jul 11 2009, 4:39 AM EDT
Watch
Can someone provide a campus map where the workshop locations are clearly marked?
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
|
