mdf and its applications sebastian drude & irina nevskaya goethe-universität frankfurt relish /...

MDF and its Applications

Sebastian Drude & Irina NevskayaGoethe-Universität Frankfurt

RELISH / Lexicon Meeting Nijmegen July 2010

MDF and ist Applications

1. MDF: what is it?

2. Organization of the MDF-format

3. Advantages, problems with MDF

4. Applications and conversions

5. MDF in the RELISH project: Udi

1. MDF: what is it?

• Originally, the Multiple Dictionary Formatterwas an independent computer program

• It converted certain files in Standard Format into RTF (to be further processed and printed with office software)

• Today it is part of the Toolbox (formerly Shoebox) program, in form of Consistent Changes tables (*.cct, complex scripts for search-and-replace routines) and MS-Word template files (*.dot)

1. MDF: what is it?

Standard Format (SF) is a very old text format developed by SIL with minimal mark-up:

• The content is organized in “fields”• Each field consists of a “marker” (a newline

followed by a backslash and a sequence of letters, hyphens, digits etc.) and the “field content” (free text), separated from the marker by a space character

• This is a simple feature–value structure

Entry

Field

Field marker

Field content

“Standard Format” data file

1. MDF: what is it?

• The MDF program uses a certain SET of markers, representing typical data categories used in traditional lexicography

• Properties of the fields (Language etc.) and a minimal hierarchical structure through a “is–below”–relation are kept in a separate “.typ” (type) file, which is also in SF

• In this sense, a file in MDF format is a (SF) text file which uses the MDF set of markers (in the MDF hierarchical organization)

Marker def.

Description

Language

Position in hierarchy

MDF.typ (config file)


1. MDF: what is it?






• There are currently about 100 markers directly supported by MDF (“MDF-fields”)

• The basic hierarchy is:\lx (lexeme)└˃ \se (sub-entry) └˃ \ps (part of speech) └˃ \sn (sense number)

• Other hierarchies might or used to be supported: ( \lx > \se > \sn > \ps or \lx > \sn > \ps > \se )

1. MDF: what is it?

MDF is documented by the book:Coward, David F. & Grimes, Charles E. (2000). Making Dictionaries: A guide to lexicography and the Multi-Dictionary Formatter. Waxhaw, North Carolina: SIL International (1st ed. 1995)

URL: http://www.sil.org/computing/shoebox/MDF_2000.pdfhttp://www.sil.org/computing/shoebox/MDF_Updates.html

http://www.sil.org/computing/shoebox/MDF_2000.pdf

http://www.sil.org/computing/shoebox/MDF_Updates.html

2. Organization of the MDF-formatSeveral fields can be repeated for up to four different languages, where “..” → v = vernacular, e = English, n = national, r = regional• \ps, \pn – part of speech for main entry word (English, national)• \g.. – gloss for main entry word• \d.. – definition for main entry word• \re, \rn, \rr – reverse (for indexes)• \we, \wn, \wr – word-level gloss• \x.. – example (sentence and translations)• \e.. – encyclopedic information• \u.. – usage information• \o.. – only (restriction) information• (\va), \ve, \vn, \vr – variant form comment• (\cf), \ce, \cn, \cr – cross reference gloss• (\lf), \le, \ln, \lr – “lexical function” (gloss for related word)• \pd.. – “paradigm” (gloss for –irregular– form)


Some 20 fields are discouraged: • \an (antonym), \sy (synonym) are to be substituted

by the \lf (lexical function), \lfv (lexical function vernacular), \lf.. (lexical function gloss) fields• \sg (singular), \pl (plural), \1s (first person singular) etc.

are to be substituted by the \pdl (paradigm form label), \pdv (paradigm form vernacular), \pd.. (paradigm form gloss) fields (not yet in the documentation)

Two fields (\dt, \st) are administrative fields

So there are only about 50 genuinely different MDF fields


• Some of the fields form blocks/groups via the hierarchy, for instance:

• \lf (lexical function, relations to other entries) └˃ \lfv related form, \lf.. gloss of rel. form (Engl., nat., reg.)

• \pd (Paradigm information & irregular forms) └˃ \pdl pdg. label, \pdv pdg. form, \pd.. pdg. gl. (Engl., nat., reg.)

• \rf (reference to an example) └˃ \xv example form in the vernacular └˃ \x.. translation of rel. form (Engl., nat., reg.)

• \cf (cross-reference form) └˃ \c.. cross-reference gloss (Engl., nat., reg.)

• \va (variant form) └˃ \v.. comment on variant form (Engl., nat., reg.)


1. MDF: what is it?






Advantages:• Very flexible SF database format

(optional fields, repeated fields etc.)• Quite exhaustive for standard lexicography

in field research on minority languages• Is a de-facto standard, although Toolbox

is officially not supported by SIL any more (now replaced by FIELD / FLEX)


General problems:• Flexibility of SF allows for inconsistencies• Only recommended order for sister fields• Almost always extended and adjusted

arbitrarily by individual users (MDF-derived / MDF-based formats)

• Changes in the hierarchy in the configuration are not reflected in the data file and vice versa

• Missing closing tags in SF impair conversions


Specific problems in the RELISH project:• \ph (phonetic form) is too generic, it would

be needed in several different contexts (\cf, \va, \pdv, \lfv…)

• \lt (literal meaning) exists only for head word, it would be needed for borrowed words etc.

• Even the 3 languages are not sufficient • To set a “language” property should be possible

for arbitrary fields


Specific problems in the RELISH project:• No clear solution for covering several dialects• In particular if no dialect is “standard”• Different solutions:

– \ue (usage information)– \oe (only / restriction)– \ns (notes on sociolinguistics, varieties)– \lf SynD = … (lexical function “Dialectal Synonym”)– \va & \ve (variant form and English comment)

• Most of these solutions only hold for the head word, we would need dialect marking for \lx, \xv, \va, …


Comment on dialect problem in MDF book:“We intend future enhancements of MDF to have fields dedicated to dialectal information, but at present the programming limitations do not allow us any more field bundles. For the present, use \va and \lf SynD =. (footnote p23)


1. MDF: what is it?






“Applications” (of the format) may have different meanings:

• For different languages / dictionary projects• For transformations / conversions:– print-dictionaries (via Toolbox, MDF, Word / RTF)– HTML (Lexique Pro)– XML (Toolbox export)– LMF – XML (Lexus import)– FLEX database


Problems with all conversions:• What happens with inconsistencies?• What happens with different orders

of same-level-fields?• What happens with additional (non-MDF) fields?• What happens with sub-entries?


1. MDF: what is it?






• Digital representation of a print dictionary, with additions

• Main problem: several languages:– Udi (v)– Azerbaidjan (Cyrillic) (n1)– Azerbaidjan (Latin) (n1lat) (addition)– Georgian (n2)– Russian (r)– English (e) (addition)


• The Udi Toolbox database uses 53 fields• of these, 14 are standard MDF fields• 11 are MDF fields which have a slightly

different position in the hierarchy• 28 fields are additional fields– most (19) of these are for adjusting

the additional “languages” (and scripts)– 5 are for additional phonetic representations

\lx . . . . \gn1 . \hm . . . . . \dn1. \se . . . . . \ltn1. \mn . . . . . \nan1. . \mn-ph . . . . . \gn1lat. . \ph . . . . . . \dn1lat. . \a . . . . . . \ltn1lat. . . \a-ph . . . . . . \nan1lat. . \bw . . . . \gr . . \ns . . . . . \dr . . \ng . . . . . \ltr. . \va . . . . . \nar. . . \va-ph . . . . \gn2 . . . \va-ns . . . . . \dn2. . \pl . . . . . \ltn2. . . \pl-ph . . . . . \nan2. . \ee . . . . \ge . . . \er . . . . . \de. . \lt . . . . . \oe. . . \lte . . . . \xv . . \ps . . . . . \xv-ph. . . \pr . . . . . \x-ns. . . \sn . . . . . \xn1. . . . \nt . . . . . . \xn1lat. . . . \gn1 . . . . . \xr

. . . . . \xn2

. . . . . \xe

. \dt

MDF-LEXUS conversion

1. From a printed dictionary to a markup text file2. From a markup text file to the MDF structure in the Toolbox

environment3. From the MDF structure to the LEXUS structure

Step 1. From a printed dictionary to a markup text file - 1

Step 1. From a printed dictionary to a markup text file - 2

Step 2. From a markup text file to the MDF structure in the Toolbox environment - 1

• Establishing correlations of different sign combinations and their linguistic counterparts

• Establishing the MDF markers‘ structure and their hierarchies • Consistency checks:• Cross-reference failures:• - absence of the head word• - absence of the variant• Numerous spelling mistakes• Numerous mistakes in the Russian and English translations• Inconsistencies in contrasting subentries and examples

Step 2. From a markup text file to the MDF structure in the Toolbox environment -2

Step 3. From the MDF structure to the LEXUS structure - 1

5. MDF in RELISH: Udi into Lexique Pro

From the MDF to the FLEX structure

• Defining writing systems– Problems with introducing digraphs and the corresponding

sort orders• Defining import properties– Problems with markers‘ matching due to different markers

and their hierarchies– Import failures

• 2 attempts: – project Udi1– Project Udi 2

Attempt 1: project Udi 1 (import residue) - 1 Defining writing systems

Attempt 1: project Udi 1 (import residue) - 2Defining the file format

Attempt 1: project Udi 1 (import residue) - 3Language mapping

Attempt 1: project Udi 1 (import residue) - 4Content mapping

Attempt 1: project Udi 1 (import residue) - 5Content mapping

Attempt 1: project Udi 1 (import residue) – 6Key markers

Attempt 1: project Udi 1 (import residue) – 7readiness check

Attempt 1: project Udi 1 (import residue) - 8

Attempt 2: project Udi 2 -1encoding writing systems

Attempt 2: project Udi 2 – 2defining the file format

Attempt 2: project Udi 2 - 3language mapping

Attempt 2: project Udi 2 - 4content mapping

Attempt 2: project Udi 2 - 5content mapping

Attempt 2: project Udi 2 - 6defining custom fields

Attempt 2: project Udi 2 - 7modifying mapping

Attempt 2: project Udi 2 - 8defining key markers

Attempt 2: project Udi 2 - 9readiness check

Attempt 2: project Udi 2 - 10import preview results

Attempt 2: project Udi 2 - 11import preview results

Attempt 2: project Udi 2 - 12ready to import

Attempt 2: project Udi 2 - 13import failures

MDF and its Applications

Sebastian Drude & Irina NevskayaGoethe-Universität Frankfurt

RELISH / Lexicon Meeting Nijmegen July 2010

mdf and its applications sebastian drude & irina nevskaya goethe-universität frankfurt relish /...

Documents

mdf mdffields

mdf format

mdf advantages

mdf program

different mdf fields

mdf general problems

irregular form slide

udi slide