=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1899/OntoLex_2017_paper_5
|storemode=property
|title=Towards a Module for Lexicography in OntoLex
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1899/OntoLex_2017_paper_5.pdf
|volume=Vol-1899
|authors=Julia Bosque-Gil,Jorge Gracia,Elena Montiel-Ponsoda
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ldk/Bosque-GilGM17
}}
==Towards a Module for Lexicography in OntoLex==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1899/OntoLex_2017_paper_5.pdf
Towards a Module for Lexicography in OntoLex
Julia Bosque-Gil, Jorge Gracia, Elena Montiel-Ponsoda
Ontology Engineering Group, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
jbosque,jgracia,emontiel@fi.upm.es
Abstract. Dictionaries are increasingly being transformed into linguis-
tic linked lata (LLD) relying on the lemon and OntoLex models, but
this conversion is not always straightforward. For both linked data (LD)
based applications to exploit all content provided in dictionaries and
lexicographers adopting LD technologies, the original data and structure
should be retrievable from the LLD version to prevent any loss of infor-
mation in the transformation. In this position statement we motivate the
need for a new module in OntoLex targeted at the representation of dic-
tionaries and which will address structures and annotations commonly
found in lexicography. Some of the issues we identified in our initial ex-
periences are presented as input for discussion, along with our initial
approaches to solve them. Such a module is intended to be compati-
ble with other modules in OntoLex and should guarantee information
preservation, making LD a viable mechanism for lexicographers in the
development of lexica.
Keywords: OntoLex, Linguistic Linked Data, lemon, lexicography, dic-
tionaries
1 Introduction
Over the past few years, more and more efforts are being devoted towards the
conversion of dictionaries into Linguistic Linked Data (LLD), based on lemon [1]
and its more recent version OntoLex1 , a de facto standard to represent ontology-
lexica on the Web.These works aim both to enrich the so-called Linguistic Linked
(Open) Data cloud2 with lexical information to be consumed by natural language
processing (NLP) tools, and to build bridges between the lexicography and the
Semantic Web communities. Recent projects such as LIDER3 , or on-going ones
such as ENeL4 , LDH4HELTA5 , and LiODi6 , promote the adoption of linked
data technologies in the work with lexicographic resources focusing on language
technologies, e-lexicography and linguistic research, respectively. The benefits of
1
http://www.w3.org/2016/05/ontolex/
2
http://linguistic-lod.org/llod-cloud
3
http://www.lider-project.eu/
4
http://www.elexicography.eu/
5
http://ldl4.com/
6
http://acoli.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de/liodi/
2 Julia Bosque-Gil, Jorge Gracia, Elena Montiel-Ponsoda
representing lexical content from dictionaries as LLD (e.g. interoperability across
resources or better visibility and reuse), have already been extensively reported
in the literature [2, 3]. By way of illustration, we will refer to the experiences and
advantages of migrating monolingual [3], bilingual [4], multilingual [5], Ancient
Greek [6], dialectal [7–9], and etymological dictionaries [10, 11], along with the
WordNet family of resources [12] and theory-based dictionaries (Pattern Dic-
tionary of English Verbs [13], Parole-Simple Lexica [14, 15]), among others. The
added value of using linked data technologies in lexicography and its implications
for the micro- and macro structure have been explored as well [16].
Nonetheless, the conversion of a dictionary to OntoLex is not always straight-
forward. lemon was initially developed to enrich a given ontology with a lexical
layer, and not with the idea of rendering any already existent dictionary to LLD.
A majority of scholars working on this field, however, are turning to lemon or On-
toLex in pursuit of the latter objective. The more numerous and resource-specific
the annotations in a dictionary are, the more complex the modeling solutions
are, especially if until then the dictionary was targeted at human users. We are
aware that some solutions exceed the needs of lexical information that some NLP
tools require. However, if we are also aiming to bring linked data to lexicogra-
phy, all dictionary content must be taken into account and must be retrievable
once converted to LLD, i.e, migrating to LLD should imply no information loss.
This means that structural aspects of the dictionary, as for instance senses and
homographs order, along with the sub-sense hierarchy some dictionaries display,
should be kept in mind when offering modeling solutions. There is a range of
dictionary annotations (domain of usage, region, frequent use tags, restrictions
on number and gender depending on a sense, etc.) that affect word meaning and
language usage and are not structural in nature. Collocations, idioms, paradig-
matic relations, context indicators, semantic selection, among other aspects, are
presented differently in dictionaries and modeling them is not trivial.
The natural doubt that would be entertained by many experts is whether
OntoLex is supposed to provide the means to model all aspects of a dictionary
or whether this is outside of its scope, ontology lexicalization, and therefore
should be tackled by another initiative. In this paper we motivate our insights
on OntoLex to enable dictionary representation as LLD in all its granularity, and
advocate for the creation of a lexicography-specific module that would gather el-
ements concerning dictionary structure and annotations. The module could also
link to other potential modules that might be proposed, such as an etymology-
oriented one to support etymological dictionaries, for instance.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 goes through the
state of the art on LLD and lexicography and some of the problems encountered
during the representation of dictionaries as LLD. Our motivation for OntoLex to
be able to tackle those and the issues presented throughout the paper is stated
in that section as well. Section 3 describes five of a series of issues we identified in
our work modeling and analyzing dictionary entries, and which we argue serve
as input for discussion on the need for a module for lexicography. Our initial
approaches towards such a module and a description of how it would solve the
Towards a Module for Lexicography in OntoLex 3
described issues are outlined in Section 4, while Section 5 offers some concluding
remarks.
2 Background and Motivation
There have been several reports in the literature on the conversion of dictionar-
ies to LLD, most of them relying on lemon or OntoLex. However, proprietary
formats, such as that of K Dictionaries (KD)7 , often have XML tags used in
their annotation schemes that refer to linguistic categories or features which
are not present in available repositories of linguistic categories or which lack a
compatible definition that prevents us from reusing the ontology entity at hand.
Ad hoc vocabularies were defined to migrate content from the German mono-
lingual dictionary of KD’s Global Series [3] and its Spanish multilingual set [5].
These works approached issues which affect, for example, the relation between
a lexical sense and the lexicalized phrases and idioms in which it occurs, re-
gional restrictions, lexical and semantic selection (in general) of lexical entries,
groups of homographs, tone and register indications, inflection groups, context
of use, frequency modifiers to register, etc. Multilingual dictionaries pose fur-
ther problems due to the modeling of examples and translations of examples,
as well as alternative forms of those translations (e.g. an example in English
translated to Japanese in kanji and hiragana, and that translation in turn with
a transliteration in rōmaji). The set of thirteen dictionaries (dialectal, bilingual,
monolingual, historical, etc.) converted as part of the ENel Action [2] required
the definition of new properties to encode different types of temporal information
and etymological aspects.
Structures typically found in dictionaries, such as the sense and sub-sense
hierarchy in an entry, are not trivial to model either. polyLemon [6], developed as
part of the conversion of the Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon to lemon, was
suggested in order to capture the sense and sub-sense structure in dictionaries
using properties such as senseChild and senseSibling to relate senses and
their parent senses in the dictionary entry.
The accurate representation of etymological information as LLD is key in
the conversion of historical and etymological dictionaries. An extension to lemon,
lemonet, to represent etymological information of lexical entries was proposed [10]
and, more recently, a revisited version builds upon the properties suggested for
the modeling of the etymological WordNet8 to undertake the conversion of the
Tower of Babel (Starling) in the LiODi project [11]. Some recent work on the
conversion of the classical Arabic Dictionary Al-Qamus to lemon and LMF has
been undertaken [17], but no pointers or traceback to the original structure are
given in the work.
Alternatives to the use of OntoLex are available as well. The Oxford Global
Languages Ontology (OGL) [18] has been developed to model and integrate
multilingual linguistic data from Oxford Dictionaries and emerges as an ontology
7
http://kdictionaries-online.com/
8
http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~demelo/etymwn/
4 Julia Bosque-Gil, Jorge Gracia, Elena Montiel-Ponsoda
exclusively created to meet dictionary representation requirements. It accounts
for a range of information found in dictionaries, from inflected forms to semantic
relations, pragmatic features and etymological data. The focus is laid on the
representation of grammatical information with cross-linguistic validity and the
respect towards grammar traditions. However, some modeling decisions and class
definitions differ from those suggested in the OntoLex core (e.g. Form in OntoLex
vs. a Form in OGL) and the emphasis is not set on the reuse of available ontology
entities.
In this position paper we do not focus on a particular kind of lexical in-
formation present in dictionaries (e.g., etymology or morphology) but we aim
to highlight some difficulties in the modeling of dictionary entries without in-
formation loss. Thus, we will not target the representation of resource-specific
features of particular dictionaries. Taken into account the problems reported
in the literature, and after analyzing dictionary entries in e-dictionaries of En-
glish (Oxford [19], Merriam Webster [20], American Heritage Dictionary [21],
COBUILD Advanced English Dictionary and Collins English Dictionary [22]),
German (Duden [23], PONS Deutsch als Fremdsprache [24]), and Spanish (Dic-
cionario de la Lengua Española (DLE) [25], CLAVE [26]), we report on some of
the issues we gathered which may pose problems for the modeling with OntoLex
and which we believe call for the definition of a new module to account for them.
Future steps include the analysis of dictionaries in languages that are underrep-
resented in the LLOD cloud (e.g. Japanese) to identify further representation
challenges.
We ground our proposal for a lexicography module on the following four
points: (1) the use of OntoLex by the majority of the community to convert
linguistic resources to LLD instead of to lexicalize ontologies, (2) the nature
of lemon being descriptive but not prescriptive and the respect towards differ-
ent lexicographic views, (3) the coming together of the lexicography and the
Semantic Web communities and potential benefits that LLD may bring about
to lexicography, assuming it involves no information loss, and (4) the reuse of
already available mechanisms in OntoLex.
3 Issues
In the following we report on some of the issues we have come across after
our experiences in converting dictionaries to LLD and our analysis of dictionary
entries in English, German and Spanish. Here we restrain ourselves to issues that
reveal current limitations of the OntoLex model, i.e, cases in which applying the
lemon core implies a different view on the data than the one provided in the
original resource and, therefore, an information loss (type 1, hence T1), and
missing entities, e.g. a property or a class, to account for information mostly
found in dictionaries (type 2, hence T2). We have already raised some of these
issues as input for discussion to the OntoLex community.9
9
https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Lexicography
Towards a Module for Lexicography in OntoLex 5
Issue 1 (T1). Headwords that can take different parts-of-speech
Both lemon and OntoLex specify a lexical entry as a word, a multiword expres-
sion or an affix with a single part-of-speech, morphological pattern, etymology
and set of senses.10 However, a headword in a dictionary may occur with differ-
ent parts-of-speech depending on context and its senses are nonetheless defined
in the same dictionary entry, all of them derived from the same etymology (no
homonymy involved). Applying the OntoLex model would imply the generation
of several ontolex:LexicalEntr[ies], one per each part-of-speech the head-
word can take. Splitting the dictionary entry into several lexical entries would
cause loss of information (shared etymology, pronunciation, senses implicitly
related) and does not keep track of the dictionary representation. Examples:
poison, bread, water (noun and verb), Sp. lento ‘slow, slowly’ (adjective and
adverb), Sp. alto ‘tall, loudly, height’ (adjective, adverb and noun).
Issue 2 (T1). Lexical sense requiring a particular form
Some senses of a dictionary headword require a particular form, e.g. in English
a plural form or in Spanish a masculine or feminine one. Since the meaning in
these cases is associated with the form and it may differ significantly from other
senses that do share gender or number features, splitting the dictionary entry
into different lexical entries would be an option (see Issue 1). An alternative
is the linking of that sense to elements in a catalog of grammatical categories
which encode those grammatical restrictions, but we would need an exhaustive
list of them in order for this option to be applicable. Examples: refreshment(s),
Sp. cometa (m.) ‘comet’, (f.) ‘kite’. In these cases, the dictionary entry can be a
single one (e.g. refreshment in English or cometa in Spanish) but one of its senses
indicates a preferred form. In the case of refreshment, the plural form is used
if the intended meaning is snacks and beverages; with the Spanish cometa, the
feminine form is applicable when referring to a kite, the masculine when denoting
a comet. Further examples are good(s), manner(s); Sp. frente (m.) ‘front’, (f.)
‘forehead’.
Issue 3 (T2). Usage examples and their translations
Usage examples of a word or multiword expression are often provided in the
definition of each of a dictionary entry’s senses. Lexinfo includes a property
lexinfo:senseExample to describe an example of a sense (as a subproperty
of lemon:definition) and which is linked to the example data category in
ISOCat.11 Nonetheless, due to it being a datatype property, it does not enable
including further information on the example or to establish translation relations
among examples, which is common practice in bilingual and multilingual dictio-
naries. The lemon model included a lemon:UsageExample class and a property
lemon:example to link to it, but OntoLex does not cover this aspect yet. Exam-
10
https://www.w3.org/2016/05/ontolex/#lexical-entries
11
http://www.isocat.org/
6 Julia Bosque-Gil, Jorge Gracia, Elena Montiel-Ponsoda
ples: Sp. Preocuparse ‘worry’; Sp. no hay por qué preocuparse ‘there is nothing
to worry about’ (Collins English-Spanish Dictionary).12
Issue 4 (T2). Sense and homographs order
The order of senses may be based on frequency of use, date of origin, concrete-
ness (from the most concrete to most abstract sense, etc.). Homographs are
also given according to some ordering criteria that may vary from dictionary to
dictionary. Their order should be searchable and retrievable as to recover the
information provided in the original resource. Examples: Boa: noun. (1) any of
a family (Boidae) of large snakes that kill by constriction and that includes the
boa constrictor, anaconda, and python (2) a long fluffy scarf (Merriam Web-
ster Dictionary)13 ; bat 1 : n. 1. A stout wooden stick; a cudgel [. . . ]; bat 2 : n. Any
of various nocturnal flying mammals of the order Chiroptera [. . . ] (American
Heritage Dictionary).14
Issue 5 (T2). Semantic selection
Some dictionaries indicate the semantic features of the lexical items that an entry
(in one of its senses) selects or even the exact lexical items with which it collo-
cates. This is usually indicated either with a specific tag (e.g. KD’s tag Range Of
Application), or in-between parentheses at the beginning of a definition. Exam-
ples are, for instance, the dictionary entry for the German verb dämmen, which
in its sense ‘to insulate, absorb, mute’ selects arguments that denote warmth or
sound (German Wärme, Schall, etc.) (KD)15 , the adjective cozy, meaning ben-
eficial to all those involved and possibly somewhat corrupt if predicated from a
transaction or an arrangement (Google Dictionary)16 ; or the collocational mea-
sure words of luck : stroke, piece of (Oxford Collocations Dictionary).17 The
synsem:OntoMap class allows to map a syntactic frame to an ontology entity,
so that the frame and its arguments are linked to the ontology elements that
they lexicalize. Even though dictionaries commonly include information on sub-
categorization (transitive/intransitive/reflexive etc. annotations for verbs, for
instance), details on the syntactic frame are not always provided beyond those
annotations. Since in dictionary conversion we often lack a given ontology and
detailed syntactic information is not provided, the mapping between syntac-
tic arguments and ontology entities seems difficult to establish automatically via
12
“worry”. Intransitive Verb. Def. 1, Example 5. Collins English-Spanish Dictio-
nary. http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-spanish/worry.
Last accessed 13/07/2017.
13
“boa”. n. Merriam Webster Dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary/boa. Last accessed 13/07/2017. Example of logical order of senses in-
spired by Diccionario de la Lengua Española, Guı́a de Consulta, http://dle.rae.
es/.
14
“bat”1 . n. Def. 1.; “bat”2 . n. Def. American Heritage Dictionary, https://
ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=bat. Last Acessed 13/07/2017.
15
“dämmen”. Sense 2. K Dictionaries Global Series Multilingual German Dictionary
16
“cosy”. Def. 1., sub-sense 3. Google Dictionary. Last Accessed 13/07/2017.
17
“luck”. QUANT. Deuter, M. (Ed.). (2008). Oxford Collocations Dictionary for stu-
dents of English. Oxford University Press, p. 473.
Towards a Module for Lexicography in OntoLex 7
synsem:OntoMap: how do we automatically represent that the adjective cozy has
a meaning only applied to transaction or agreement or that the measure words
that collocate with luck are stroke, piece if the morphosyntactic information
provided in the dictionary is just that cozy is an adjective and luck a noun? Fur-
thermore, synsem:condition (in its turn subsuming synsem:propertyRange
and synsem:propertyDomain) enables us to state constraints on the arguments
of a predicate in a given ontology.18 The possibility of reusing it to state the
constraints on syntactic arguments even in cases in which we lack a given on-
tology and therefore are not mapping to given ontology properties has to be
further analyzed. In addition, the potential links between the modeled entries
(e.g. piece and luck ) (i.e, the links at the lexical level) are also to be considered,
for instance, by taking into account recent proposals on the representation of
lexical functions as LLD [27].
4 A Module for Lexicography
The previous section dealt with some of the issues we encountered in our work
with dictionaries and the potential ones that may rise with other lexicographic
works that have not been migrated to LLD yet. In the following we draft a
potential solution which can serve as basis for a new module in OntoLex specifi-
cally developed for the representation of dictionaries after thorough revision and
improvement according to the community’s feedback.
In order to keep track of the dictionary representation and prevent any loss
of information mentioned in Issue 1, related to the splitting of dictionary entries
in several lexical entries, we propose a new class DictionaryEntry. This new
class would both enable to group together lexical entries as well as to associate
any information shared by all of them. A class Entry was proposed in the re-
cent Oxford Global Languages Ontology [18] (OGL) to store provenance data
and allow a fast filtering, whereby a lexical entry in OGL would be linked to
all OGL entries that provide information about it. In our view, we distinguish
lexical entries and lexicons (as containers of lexical entries), from the original
dictionary entry (a new class DictionaryEntry) and the original dictionary re-
source (Dictionary), which would serve in turn to record the provenance of
each dictionary entry. Mirroring the lime:Lexicon-LexicalEntry relation we
suggest a Dictionary-DictionaryEntry one. Any lexical entry created during
the conversion to LLD but not originally provided in the resource would then
belong to a lime:Lexicon, but not to the instance of Dictionary representing
that resource. A lime:Lexicon in English, for example, could aggregate lexical
entries created on the fly by the LLD expert or original ones coming from as
many English dictionaries as desired. These dictionaries can in turn differ in
their modeling and their views on the data, their criteria of sense ordering or
their structure.
Regarding Issue 2, the DictionaryEntry class would allow to divide a single
lexical entry into several ones if desired, each with a different preferred form,
18
https://www.w3.org/2016/05/ontolex/#conditions
8 Julia Bosque-Gil, Jorge Gracia, Elena Montiel-Ponsoda
while maintaining the original dictionary representation. If the dictionary entry
is not split, the option of linking a sense to a grammatical restriction on gender or
number from an external catalog would solve the issue, although the implications
of this solution (its benefits and drawbacks) will need further analysis.
In order to represent usage examples and their translations (Issue 3) we
propose to go back to lemon:UsageExample and link it to a LexicalSense. A
new class ExampleCluster would link to UsageExamples that are translations
from each other. The use of the vartrans module to model translations among
senses would imply the creation of lexical senses for each example, and therefore
treating the example as a lexical entry, which we deem is beyond the definition
of lexical entries.
Issue 4 was concerned with the order of senses in a dictionary entry and the
order of homographs in the macrostructure of the dictionary. There are different
possible approaches to resolve this: reusing already available RDF mechanisms,
reifying the sense order in a new class SenseOrder, or defining a new property
senseOrder attached to the lexical sense. The first and straightest forward op-
tion involves the reuse of rdfs:Containers to declare with e.g. rdf: 1, rdf: 2
that a particular sense is the first or the second one. However, cases in which a
set of senses allows for various orderings, depending on the ordering criterion, or
in which some senses come from different dictionaries (each one with its order),
should also be accounted for.
The second option suggests that the sense order is reified in a class SenseOrder
linked to the lexical sense. This class would enable us to record the position of
that sense, its provenance (presumably an instance of the class Dictionary),
and, if desired, the ordering criterion. If repeated senses were identified (e.g.
senses that share a definition in both dictionaries), SenseOrder would allow us
to have one single lexical sense with two different positions according to the two
different orderings and dictionaries, in a similar fashion as two containers with
two different sequences of senses. Alternatively, if we assume that a lexical sense
always comes from just one dictionary source, a property senseOrder would
suffice.
Issue 5, dealing with semantic selection, has been brought up for further dis-
cussion in this paper as to see whether it could be covered by synsem module
mechanisms or whether it would require new entities in the context of the lexi-
cography module. As part of the conversion of the KD’s Global Series Spanish
Multilingual Dictionary [5], the semantic selection information provided by KD’s
tag Range of Application was captured by the use of synsem:condition. In that
approach, synsem:condition would link a lexical sense to a blank node19 with
an rdf:value recording the strings given as arguments in the original data.
This modeling allowed us to deal with the lack of a given ontology and detailed
information on the syntactic frames of lexical entries for each of their senses.
Thus, the focus was set on representing the data just as it was in its original
format while being compliant with the OntoLex formal specification and reusing
its elements as much as possible. We argue that the lexicography module should
19
synsem:condition has rdfs:Resource as range.
Towards a Module for Lexicography in OntoLex 9
aim to set the basis to exploit at the dictionary’s macro-structure level the po-
tential benefits of establishing semantic relations among lexical senses based on
lexical selection or among syntactic frames and arguments and the ontology en-
tities that they denote. To this aim, overcoming the lack of detailed syntactic
information in the dictionary as well as the lack of a given ontology to lexicalize
becomes essential.
5 Conclusion
OntoLex is increasingly being used to convert linguistic resources to LLD out-
side the scope of ontology localization. In this position statement we have drawn
attention to a series of issues raised in the literature on LLD related to the con-
version of dictionaries to LD and to five of the ones we came across in the same
line of work and after a later analysis of several additional dictionaries. We argue
that the OntoLex model should enable the preservation of the content and the
structure of the original resource, even if the LLD expert opts for a different
representation more suited to the exploitation of the data by external appli-
cations or more in line with his or her view on the lexicon-ontology interface.
We have outlined some of our insights on how to address these issues in a new
module for lexicography. It would be compatible with the mechanisms suggested
in the state-of-the art on dictionaries in LLD, as of the moment of writing, and
also with other potential modules for the representation of specific lexical as-
pects (e.g. etymology). The final module is intended to be dictionary-agnostic
in the sense that it should be applicable (and combined with other modules if
necessary) to different kinds of dictionaries (e.g., general, collocations, learner’s,
etymological, historical, etc.). This would bring linked data (LD) closer to lex-
icography not only with the aim of leveraging already available dictionaries in
LD for NLP tasks, but also of introducing linked data in the work carried out
in that discipline.
Acknowledgments. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful
suggestions that have contributed to the improvement of this article. This work
is supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports through
the Formación del Profesorado Universitario (FPU) program, and by the Spanish
Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness through the project 4V (TIN2013-
46238-C4-2-R) with the FEDER funding scheme, the Juan de la Cierva program,
and the Excellence Network ReTeLe (TIN2015-68955-REDT).
References
1. McCrae, J., Aguado-de-Cea, G., Buitelaar, P., Cimiano, P., Declerck, T., Gómez-
Pérez, A., Wunner, T.: Interchanging lexical resources on the Semantic Web. Lan-
guage Resources and Evaluation, 46(4), 701719 (2012)
10 Julia Bosque-Gil, Jorge Gracia, Elena Montiel-Ponsoda
2. Declerck, T., Wandl-Vogt, E., and Mörth, K.: Towards a Pan European Lexicog-
raphy by Means of Linked (Open) Data. In: Electronic lexicography in the 21st
century: linking lexical data in the digital age. Proceedings of the eLex 2015 con-
ference, pp. 342–355. (2015)
3. Klimek, B., and Brümmer, M.: Enhancing lexicography with semantic language
databases. Kernerman Dictionary News 23, 5–10 (2015)
4. Gracia, J., Villegas, M., Gómez-Pérez, A., and Bel, N.: The Apertium Bilingual
Dictionaries on the Web of Data. Semantic Web Journal, IOS Press (2016)
5. Bosque-Gil, J., Gracia, J., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., and Aguado-de-Cea, G.: Modelling
multilingual lexicographic resources for the Web of Data: The K Dictionaries case.
In: GLOBALEX 2016 Lexicographic Resources for Human Language Technology
Workshop Programme, pp. 65. (2016)
6. Khan, F., Dı́az-Vera, J. E., and Monachini, M.: Representing Polysemy and Di-
achronic Lexicosemantic Data on the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of the Second
International Workshop on Semantic Web for Scientific Heritage co-located with
13th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2016), Heraklion, Greece, pp.
37–46. (2016)
7. Declerck, T., and Mörth, K.: Towards a Sense-based Access to Related Online Lex-
ical Resources. In: Proceedings of Euralex 2016, pp. 342–355. (2016)
8. Declerck, T., and Wandl-Vogt, E.: How to semantically relate dialectal Dictionaries
in the Linked Data Framework. In: EACL 2014, p. 9 (2014)
9. Declerck, T., and Wandl-Vogt, E.: Cross-linking Austrian dialectal Dictionaries
through formalized Meanings. In: Proceedings of the XVI EURALEX International
Congress, pp. 329–343 (2014)
10. Chiarcos, C., and Sukhareva, M.: Linking Etymological Databases. A Case Study in
Germanic. In: 3rd Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics: Multilingual Knowledge
Resources and Natural Language Processing, p. 41. (2014)
11. Abromeit, F., and Fäth, C.: Linking the Tower of Babel: Modelling a Massive Set
of Etymological Dictionaries as RDF. In: LDL 2016 5th Workshop on Linked Data
in Linguistics: Managing, Building and Using Linked Language Resources, p. 11
(2016)
12. McCrae, J., Fellbaum, C., and Cimiano, P.: Publishing and Linking WordNet using
lemon and RDF. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics.
(2014)
13. El Maarouf, I., Bradbury, J., and Hanks, P.: PDEV-lemon: a Linked Data imple-
mentation of the Pattern Dictionary of English Verbs based on the Lemon model. In:
Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics (LDL): Multilingual
Knowledge Resources and Natural Language Processing at the Ninth International
Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC14), Reykjavik, Iceland.
(2014)
14. Del Gratta, R., Frontini, F., Khan, F., and Monachini, M.: Converting the Parole
Simple Clips Lexicon into RDF with lemon. Semantic Web, 6(4), 387–392 (2015)
15. Villegas, M., and Bel, N.: PAROLE/SIMPLE lemonontology and lexicons. Seman-
tic Web 6(4), 363–369 (2015)
16. Bosque-Gil, J., Gracia, J., and Gómez-Pérez, A.: Linked data in lexicography.
Kernerman Dictionary News, 24, 19 – 24 (2016)
17. Khalfi, M., Nahli, O., and Zarghili, A.: Classical dictionary Al-Qamus in lemon. In:
2016 4th IEEE International Colloquium on Information Science and Technology
(CiSt), pp. 325–330. (2016)
Towards a Module for Lexicography in OntoLex 11
18. Parvizi, A., Kohl, M., González, M., Saurı́, R.: Towards a Linguistic Ontology with
an Emphasis on Reasoning and Knowledge Reuse. In: International Conference on
Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC16) (2016)
19. Oxford Living Dictionaries, http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/. Last accessed
13/07/2017.
20. Merriam-Webster Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/. Last accessed
13/07/2017.
21. American Heritage Dictionary, http://ahdictionary.com/. Last accessed
13/07/2017.
22. COBUILD Advanced English Dictionary and Collins English Dictionary, http:
//www.collinsdictionary.com/. Last accessed 13/07/2017.
23. Duden Online Wörterbuch, http://www.duden.de/woerterbuch. Last accessed
13/07/2017.
24. PONS Online- Wörterbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache, http://de.pons.com/. Last
accessed 13/07/2017.
25. Real Academia Española, Diccionario de la Lengua Española, 23a Edición, 2014
http://dle.rae.es. Last accessed 13/07/2017.
26. SM diccionarios. Diccionario Clave (online), http://clave.smdiccionarios.com/
app.php. Last accessed 13/07/2017.
27. Fonseca, A., Sadat, F., and Lareau, F.: Lexfom: a lexical functions ontology model.
COLING 2016, 145 (2016)