
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
This paper analyzes the application of usage labels in three representative lexicographic works, namely the Portuguese, Spanish, and French Academy Dictionaries as a starting point for creating a consistent classifcation of usage labels and their encoding in accordance with TEI Lex-0. The use of labels is not always entirely consistent within individual dictionaries and even less so across diferent lexicographic projects. This makes the tasks of accurately classifying and encoding them quite diffcult. This difculty is compounded by the diferences and partial incompatibilities found in the lexicographic literature on the treatment of diasystemic information. We address the existing literature and the initial classifcation of TEI Lex-0, and argue for the need to introduce some changes to TEI Lex-0, most notably in terms of diatextual labels. Finally, we argue that the existing classifcations based on examples rather than on clear and explicit defnitions of classifcation categories will always lack in precision and lead to mutually incompatible encodings of diferent dictionaries. We propose a set of defnitions for usage label categories that can be adopted by TEI Lex-0 and used in other similar attempts to create interoperable lexical resources. An agreement on usage label categories is a frst and necessary step before proceeding in the direction of harmonizing and standardizing the actual values of usage labels across various dictionaries and across diferent languages.
common standards (objective 2), strategies, tools, standards for lexicographic resources (objective 3), opennesse in lexicography (objective 5), WP5, access to data and tools (objective 4), lexicographic standards (objective 2), WP1
common standards (objective 2), strategies, tools, standards for lexicographic resources (objective 3), opennesse in lexicography (objective 5), WP5, access to data and tools (objective 4), lexicographic standards (objective 2), WP1
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 3 | |
popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
views | 12 | |
downloads | 16 |