@InProceedings{eckartdecastilho-EtAl:2017:LAW,
  author    = {Eckart de Castilho, Richard  and  Ide, Nancy  and  Lapponi, Emanuele  and  Oepen, Stephan  and  Suderman, Keith  and  Velldal, Erik  and  Verhagen, Marc},
  title     = {Representation and Interchange of Linguistic Annotation. An In-Depth, Side-by-Side Comparison of Three Designs},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the 11th Linguistic Annotation Workshop},
  month     = {April},
  year      = {2017},
  address   = {Valencia, Spain},
  publisher = {Association for Computational Linguistics},
  pages     = {67--75},
  abstract  = {For decades, most self-respecting linguistic engineering initiatives have
	designed and implemented custom representations for various layers of, for
	example, morphological, syntactic, and semantic analysis. Despite occasional
	efforts at harmonization or even standardization, our field today is blessed
	with a multitude of ways of encoding and exchanging linguistic annotations of
	these types, both at the levels of ‘abstract syntax’, naming choices, and
	of
	course file formats. To a large degree, it is possible to work within and
	across design plurality by conversion, and often there may be good reasons for
	divergent design reflecting differences in use. However, it is likely that some
	abstract commonalities across choices of representation are obscured by more
	superficial differences, and conversely there is no obvious procedure to tease
	apart what actually constitute contentful vs. mere technical divergences. In
	this study, we seek to conceptually align three representations for common
	types of morpho-syntactic analysis, pinpoint what in our view constitute
	contentful differences, and reflect on the underlying principles and specific
	requirements that led to individual choices. We expect that a more in-depth
	understanding of these choices across designs may led to increased
	harmonization, or at least to more informed design of future representations.},
  url       = {http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W17-0808}
}