MMoOn Core - The Multilingual Morpheme Ontology

Tracking #: 2549-3763

Bettina Klimek
Markus Ackermann
Martin Brümmer1
Sebastian Hellmann

Responsible editor: 
Philipp Cimiano

Submission type: 
Ontology Description
In the last years a rapid emergence of lexical resources has evolved in the Semantic Web. Whereas most of the linguistic information is already machine-readable, we found that morphological information is mostly absent or only contained in semi-structured strings. An integration of morphemic data has not yet been undertaken due to the lack of existing domain-specific ontologies and explicit morphemic data. In this paper, we present the Multilingual Morpheme Ontology called MMoOn Core which can be regarded as the first comprehensive ontology for the linguistic domain of morphological language data. It will be described how crucial concepts like morphs, morphemes, word forms and meanings are represented and interrelated and how language-specific morpheme inventories can be created as a new possibility of morphological datasets. The aim of the MMoOn Core ontology is to serve as a shared semantic model for linguists and NLP researchers alike to enable the creation, conversion, exchange, reuse and enrichment of morphological language data across different data-dependent language sciences. Therefore, various use cases are illustrated to draw attention to the cross-disciplinary potential which can be realized with the MMoOn Core ontology in the context of the existing Linguistic Linked Data research landscape.
Full PDF Version: 


Solicited Reviews:
Click to Expand/Collapse
Review #1
By John McCrae submitted on 27/Aug/2020
Review Comment:

This paper is still excellent and I am happy to see that all the comments have been addressed well.


p1. "AbstractIn"
p3. "not available in consequence" - I don't understand this
p3. "linguists which" => "linguists who"
p4. "To the contrary" => "On the contrary"

Review #2
Anonymous submitted on 15/Sep/2020
Review Comment:

This manuscript was submitted as 'Ontology Description' and should be reviewed along the following dimensions: (1) Quality and relevance of the described ontology (convincing evidence must be provided). (2) Illustration, clarity and readability of the describing paper, which shall convey to the reader the key aspects of the described ontology.

The most important comments that I made in my previous review have been addressed and I feel that the paper should be accepted.