Metadata harmonisation: align spoken-data fields with UniDive naming conventions
Back to Latvian LVTB · Back to index
Repo: https://github.com/UniversalDependencies/UD_Latvian-LVTB
Cross-posting from the UniDive WG1 T1.5 (spoken language guidelines) metadata harmonisation review. We compared UD_Latvian-LVTB’s current CoNLL-U metadata against the proposed naming conventions (see also the full treebank status table). This is a suggestion for maintainers to review - feel free to push back on anything that doesn’t fit the corpus. The comparison was carried out semi-automatically with the help of Claude (Anthropic); errors or misunderstandings are possible, so please double-check anything unclear.
1. Is the spoken portion identifiable?
This treebank mixes spoken and written material (genre includes spoken alongside news, fiction, legal, academic) but its .conllu files don’t explicitly mark which sentences are spoken. We looked for a pattern in the data (no signal found):
Finding: No genre-like field, document_id, or other comment-level metadata that would let us separate spoken from written sentences was found.
Suggestion: Could you point us to which sentences/documents are spoken vs. written?
No further outstanding metadata items were flagged for this treebank in the latest review.
Implementation notes
Needs manual input from maintainers
- Modality: no
document_idor genre-like comment metadata found at all, so no automatic detection was possible - need pointers to which sentences/documents are spoken vs. written (genre = spokenis only a value in the current genre field, not a per-sentence/document marker). Once that pointer exists, tagging is a one-lineharmonize_metadata.py tag-modalityorrename-commentrun, but there’s nothing to script against yet.