<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Dorothee,<br>
I just had a brief look at the Akan corpus. I'd be curious what
guided your decision to come up with a custom XML based export
format. The namespace URL <br>
<pre id="line1"><span><a class="attribute-value">http://typecraft.org/typecraft</a></span></pre>
doesn't seem to resolve, so I guess there is no schema defining the
XML, right? We included (very basic) support for IGT in CLDF (see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/cldf/cldf/tree/master/components/examples">https://github.com/cldf/cldf/tree/master/components/examples</a>),
because<br>
- the examples we found in databases like WALS could be modeled in
this simplistic form and<br>
- CSV is better suited for tools like version control than XML<br>
- we wanted to have IGT data available in the same format framework
as other linguistic data to make links between data homogenous.<br>
<br>
We also discussed other IGT formats (see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/cldf/cldf/issues/10">https://github.com/cldf/cldf/issues/10</a>), among them XIGT
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/xigt/xigt">https://github.com/xigt/xigt</a>), which is also an XML format. Did you
look at XIGT, and if so, why was it not suitable as export format
for TypeCraft?<br>
<br>
best<br>
robert<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 25.03.2018 16:51, Dorothee Beermann
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e92280a6-770e-0bb6-c4cd-000f8a36cb7e@ntnu.no">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Dear all,</p>
<p>I have followed the discussion on this thread with interest.
Let me ask you, would any of what you discuss and suggest here
also apply to Interlinear Glossed Data?<br>
</p>
<p>Sebastian talked about making "typological research more
replicable". A related issue is reproducible research in
linguists. I guess a good starting point for whatever we do as
linguists is to keep things<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p>transparent, and to give public access to data collections.
Especially for languages with little to no public resources
(except for what one finds in articles), this seems essential.<br>
</p>
<p>Here is an example of what I have in mind: We just released
41 Interlinear Glossed Texts in Akan. The data can be
downloaded as XML from:</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://typecraft.org/tc2wiki/The_TypeCraft_Akan_Corpus"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://typecraft.org/tc2wiki/The_TypeCraft_Akan_Corpus</a><br>
</p>
The corpus is described on the download page, and also in the
notes contained in the download. (Note that we can offer the
material in several other formats.) <br>
<br>
<br>
Dorothee <br>
<br>
<font color="#999999" size="-1">Professor Dorothee Beermann, PhD<br>
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)<br>
Dept. of Language and Literature<br>
Surface mail to: NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway/Norge<br>
<br>
Visit: Building 4, level 5, room 4512, Dragvoll,<br>
E-mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:dorothee.beermann@ntnu.no"
moz-do-not-send="true">dorothee.beermann@ntnu.no</a><br>
<br>
Homepage:<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.ntnu.no/ansatte/dorothee.beermann"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.ntnu.no/ansatte/dorothee.beermann</a><br>
TypeCraft:<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://typecraft.org/tc2wiki/User:Dorothee_Beermann"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://typecraft.org/tc2wiki/User:Dorothee_Beermann</a><br>
</font><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-------- Forwarded Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0"
cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Subject:
</th>
<td>Re: [Lingtyp] Empirical standards in typology:
incentives</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Date:
</th>
<td>Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:59:18 +1100</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">From:
</th>
<td>Hedvig Skirgård <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:hedvig.skirgard@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><hedvig.skirgard@gmail.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">To: </th>
<td>Johanna NICHOLS <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:johanna@berkeley.edu"
moz-do-not-send="true"><johanna@berkeley.edu></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">CC: </th>
<td>Linguistic Typology <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">Dear all,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think Sebastian's suggestion is very good. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Is this something LT would consider, Masja?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Johanna's point is good as well, but it shouldn't matter
for Sebastian's suggestion as I understand it. We're not
being asked to submit the coding criteria prior to the
survey being completed, but only at the time of publication.
There are initiatives in STEM that encourages research teams
to submit what they're planning to do prior to doing if (to
avoid biases), but that's not baked into what Sebastian is
suggestion, from what I can tell.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would also add a 4 star category which includes
inter-coderreliabiity tests, i.e. the original author(s)
have given different people the same instructions and tested
how often they do the same thing with the same grammar.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>/Hedvig</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm
0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:9pt"><b><br>
</b></span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt"><font
face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif" size="2"><b>Med
vänliga hälsningar</b><b>,</b><br>
</font></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt"><b><font
face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif" size="2">Hedvig
Skirgård</font></b></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt"><font
size="1"><span
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)">PhD
Candidate</span><br>
</font></p>
<p
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;margin:0cm
0cm 0.0001pt"><span
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font
size="1">The Wellsprings of
Linguistic Diversity</font></span></p>
<p
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;margin:0cm
0cm 0.0001pt"><font
face="verdana, sans-serif"
size="1">ARC Centre of
Excellence for the Dynamics of
Language</font></p>
<p
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;margin:0cm
0cm 0.0001pt"><font
face="verdana, sans-serif"
size="1">School of Culture,
History and Language<br>
College of Asia and the
Pacific</font></p>
<p
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;margin:0cm
0cm 0.0001pt"><font
face="verdana, sans-serif"
size="1">The Australian
National University</font></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt"><font
color="#666666" face="arial,
helvetica, sans-serif"
size="1"><a
href="https://sites.google.com/site/hedvigskirgard/"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Website</a><br>
</font></p>
<div><br>
</div>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt"><br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2018-03-23 0:49 GMT+11:00 Johanna
NICHOLS <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:johanna@berkeley.edu" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">johanna@berkeley.edu</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>What's in the codebook -- the coding categories and
the criteria? That much is usually in the body of the
paper.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Also, a minor but I think important point:
Ordinarily the codebook doesn't in fact
chronologically precede the spreadsheet. A draft or
early version of it does, and that gets revised many
times as you run into new and unexpected things. (And
every previous entry in the spreadsheet gets checked
and edited too.) By the time you've finished your
survey the categories and typology can look different
from what you started with. You publish when you're
comfortably past the point of diminishing returns. In
most sciences this is bad method, but in linguistics
it's common and I'd say normal. The capacity to
handle it needs to be built into the method in
advance. <br>
</div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div><br>
</div>
Johanna<br>
</font></span></div>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at
2:10 PM, Sebastian Nordhoff <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:sebastian.nordhoff@glottotopia.de" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">sebastian.nordhoff@<wbr>glottotopia.de</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear all,<br>
taking up a thread from last November, I would
like to start a<br>
discussion about how to make typological
research more replicable, where<br>
replicable means "less dependent on the original
researcher". This<br>
includes coding decisions, tabular data,
quantitative analyses etc.<br>
<br>
Volker Gast wrote (full quote at bottom of
mail):<br>
> Let's assume that self-annotation cannot be
avoided for financial<br>
> reasons. What about establishing a standard
saying that, for instance,<br>
> when you submit a quantitative-typological
paper to LT you have to<br>
> provide the data in such a way that the
coding decisions are made<br>
> sufficiently transparent for readers to see
if they can go along with<br>
> the argument?<br>
<br>
I see two possibilities for that: Option 1:
editors will refuse papers<br>
which do not adhere to this standard. That will
not work in my view.<br>
What might work (Option 2) is a star/badge
system. I could imagine the<br>
following:<br>
<br>
- no stars: only standard bibliographical
references<br>
- * raw tabular data (spreadsheet)
available as a supplement<br>
- ** as above, + code book available as a
supplement<br>
- *** as above, + computer code in R or
similar available<br>
<br>
For a three-star article, an unrelated
researcher could then take the<br>
original grammars and the code book and
replicate the spreadsheet to see<br>
if it matches. They could then run the computer
code to see if they<br>
arrive at the same results.<br>
<br>
This will not be practical for every research
project, but some might<br>
find it easier than others, and, in the long
run, it will require good<br>
arguments to submit a 0-star (i.e.
non-replicable) quantitative article.<br>
<br>
Any thoughts?<br>
Sebastian<br>
<br>
PS: Note that the codebook would actually
chronologically precede the<br>
spreadsheet, but I fill that spreadsheets are
more easily available than<br>
codebooks, so in order to keep the entry barrier
low, this order is<br>
reversed for the stars.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>