Mathieu Mangeot
email: mangeot@nii.ac.jp

Kyoko Kuroda
email: kyoko.kuroda@nifty.ne.jp

Interlinguistic Divergences in Papillon Multilingual Dictionary

The Papillon project aims at building a multilingual pivot dictionary by voluntary contributors in collaboration on the Internet. The project started as a French-Japanese cooperation. The languages on development are English, French, German, Japanese, Lao, Malay, Thai and Vietnamese. We will discuss about how to solve the problems raised by the divergence of the predicates' argument structures in a multilingual context. If the entry (word sense) is a predicate (e.g.: "murder"), the semantic formula describing the entry will represent this predicate (e.g.: "murder of the individual X by the individual Y"). However, the number and the position of the arguments may vary a lot among languages. For example, there is a position shift in the arguments between the English predicate "X1 misses Y1" and its French equivalent "X2 manque à Y2" with X1=Y2 and Y1=X2. We propose a way to note this divergence in order to translate structures correctly.

Introduction

The Papillon project aims at creating a multilingual lexical database with, among others, English, French, Japanese, Malay, Lao, Thai and Vietnamese. The access is free as long as there is no commercial use (open source license). Our project is open to the collaboration of any people interested in the human languages. The macrostructure of the dictionary is composed of a monolingual volume for each language and a pivot volume containing the interlingual links linking word senses in the monolingual volumes [START_REF] Sérasset | SUBLIM: un Système Universel de Bases Lexicales Multilingues et NADIA: sa spécialisation aux bases lexicales interlingues par acceptions[END_REF], [START_REF] Sérasset | Papillon Lexical Database Project: Monolingual Dictionaries & Interlingual Links[END_REF]. The microstructure of the entries is based on the combinatorial lexicography of the meaning-text theory [START_REF] Mel | Introduction à la lexicologie explicative et combi-natoire[END_REF], [START_REF] Mel | Vers une linguistique Sens-Texte[END_REF], [12]. The lexical database is built on a platform for manipulating dictionaries [START_REF] Mangeot-Lerebours | Environnements centralisés et distribués pour lexicographes et lexicologues en contexte multilingue[END_REF] available mainly on the Web. Everybody can consult the existing data and then correct, complete this data.

Until now, the Papillon dictionary proposed only interlingual links of the same type: lexies, examples or idioms. It was not possible to represent the divergence of the argument structure of lexies/predicates of different languages with the Papillon formalism. This issue was mentioned by several people during informal discussions on Papillon project.

This problem of the interlinguistic divergence is well known and has been already broadly covered in the litterature [START_REF] Nomura | An Architecture for a Universal Lexicon COLING-94[END_REF]. The specificities of this paper are to address this problem in a relatively new framework. First of all, the macrostructure of the dictionary is multilingual, and there is no limit about the number of the possible covered languages. Thus all the solutions concerning bilingual dictionaries cannot be applied here. We must find a solution that is independent from the languages and that does not explode when a new language is added.

Second point, we have to cope with the specific microstructure of Papillon which is based on combinatorial lexicography, part of the meaning-text theory. The solution must be in accordance with this theory.In this paper, we propose a modification of the formalism in order to represent these divergences. We also hope to open the discussion on this issue and invite the readers of this paper to send us remarks.

Microstructure of the Papillon Dictionary

Monolingual Entries Microstructure

The basic lexical unit of a monolingual volume entry of Papillon Dictionary is the lexie (a set of signs with the same lexical meaning) A lexie is either a lexeme, or a full idiom.

The usual convention in order to distinguish between a lexie, a character string or a word-form is to write the name of the lexie in capital letters. For example, we write the lexie MEURTRE (murder) to talk about the lexie with the headword "meurtre". This convention seems inadequate when using a multilingual dictionary because lots of languages like Japanese, Chinese or Thai do no have any distinction between capital and small letters. We adopt here a new convention consisting in using the unique identifier of the lexie (in the Papillon database) to speak about it. This identifier is built by adding the ISO 639-2/T 3 letter code of the language of the lexie (e.g.: fra for French, eng for English, jpn for Japanese, etc.), followed by a dot '.', followed by the lexie headword, optionally followed by an underscore '_' and an integer in roman numbers representing a unique identifier if the lexie is part of an homographic vocable and then followed by an integer reprensenting the unique identifier of the lexie in the vocable.

We use the dot (character '.') as a separator because it is accepted in XML identifiers unlike '$' and '#'. The headword of the lexie must be written in latin characters or in ideograms. For example, the Japanese lexie SATSUJIN will have the following identifier lexie jpn.

.1 (satsujin) (murder). For languages using nonlatin alphabets like Thai or Arabic, we must decide of a transcription in latin characters. For more precisions, see the production rules of a Name in the XML 1.0 recommendation by W3C. With the new convention, we will write the lexie MEURTRE fra.meurtre.1. In the case of homographic vocables, for example the French "campagne (électorale)" (campaign) and "campagne (où broutent les vaches)" (countryside), we will write: fra.campagne_I.1 and fra.campagne_II.1. We are not specialist about conventions, this is why we welcome any proposal favorably.

The structure of the Papillon database monolingual volumes is directly taken from the DiCo project database. The semantic formula of a lexie (semantic characterization of the lexie and its arguments) is made of a semantic label and the predicate defining the lexie. In the case of verbs, the structure of the arguments will be represented by this predicate. For example, the semantic formula corresponding to the French verb "rêver" (to dream) is the following: « personne X rêver de Y ». X and Y are the logical arguments of the predicate and also, syntactically, the actors of the verb "rêver".

The government pattern of the lexie represents the syntactical realization of the predicate arguments. In the case of the last formula, the pattern is the following: « X = I = num; Y = II = num ». X is the first argument of the predicate and is a nominam expression. Y is the second argument and is also a nominal expression.

The main syntagmatic and paradigmatic links between the lexie and other lexies of the same language are encoded with lexical functions. Special lexical functions link the head lexie with typical lexies used to speak about its arguments. For example, a possible noun, even if it is seldom used, of the first argument of fra.rêver.1 is fra.dormeur.1 (sleeper), encoded with the lexical function S1: S1(fra.rêver.1) = fra.dormeur.1.

Structure of Interlingual Links

At first, the interlingual links were representing only translation links between lexies of different languages. These links are called axies (interlingual acceptions). For example, the French lexie fra.meurtre.1, the English lexie eng.murder.1 and the Japanese lexie jpn.satsujin.1 are linked by the same axie.

Afterwards, we defined interlingual links for examples (exies) and full idioms (ixies). These interlingual links link examples and full idioms that are contained in the lexies. They do not link other types of lexies. This definition has not been implemented.

Divergent Argument Structures Issue

When two verbs of different languages are linked by a translation, the argument structures of the predicates realized by these verbs can match or diverge. When the structures match, the equivalent is easy to find for the one who wants to translate a sentence including one of these verbs in another language. For example, the argument structures of the lexies fra.manger.1 and jpn.taberu.1 (to eat) match. They are parallel: « individu X1 manger Y1 » and « X2 Y2 »(hito X2 ga Y2 wo taberu). The French argument X1 matches the Japanese argument X2, and the same for the Y argument. It is then easy to match when translating a sentence from one language to another. For example, a French beginner in Japanese can translate the French sentence " Je mange du pain. " (I eat bread) X = je (I) = (watashi); Y = pain (bread) = (pan). In Japanese: (watashi ga pan wo taberu). When the argument structures diverge (see [START_REF] Kuroda | Divergences de Traduction : cas des structures argumentales du japo-nais et du français[END_REF] for a classification of the divergences between French and Japanese), in some cases, the match is impossible to find if one does not know both languages.

Argument Position Shift

Let's examine first a simple example of argument position shift between French and English:

Lexie fra.manquer.1(X,Y) « individu X manque à individu Y ». Lexie eng.miss.1(X,Y) « individual Y miss individual X».
The arguments X and Y are shifted between French and English.

Coalescence Divergence

Let's examine next two examples of divergence called coalescence between French and Japanese:

The French lexie fra.rêver.1 is translated into Japanese by the phrase "yume wo miru" that means literally: to see a dream (voir un rêve) (yume = dream, rêve ; miru = to see, voir). The lexie fra.rêver.1 will then not have an exact equivalent in Japanese. Nevertheless, it is perfectly possible to translate a French sentence with the verb "rêver" in Japanese without any meaning loss.

Likely, the French verb "peser" is translated into Japanese by the phrase "taijuu/omosa wo hakaru" that means litteraly: measure the weight (mesurer le poids). The lexie fra.peser.1 (to weight) will not have an exact equivalent in Japanese.

If the Japanese semi-idiom "yume wo miru" and the French lexical unit "rêver" match despite their configuration difference, it is because they have both the same meaning. In other words, this same meaning is verbalized by only one word in one language and by a sequence of words in another. It is then obvious to link these meaning units by an axie. But until now, we cannot represent directly a translation link between a word and a full idiom in the structure of Papillon dictionary.

Planned Solutions

Encoding the Divergence into the Axies

The first idea is to encode that divergence into the axies. It seems rapidly unfeasible because the way to diverge varies among the language pairs. Thus, we would have to represent in the axies the divergences for each language pair: those between Japanese and French, those between Japanese and Malay, those between English and French, etc.

Moreover, the divergences are not so automatic, i.e. operable beyond the languages. It then seems impossible to design a way to represent them regardless of the languages.

At last, axies were first designed as a simple translation link between several lexical units. It is then better to stay in this simple perspective.

Linking the Lexies with Lexical Functions

For the moment, only the lexies (or more exactly the headwords of these lexies) are linked together by axies. We can only find word-to-word matches between the languages.

If we describe idioms in the lexie and if these idioms have their semantic equivalent in other languages, it would be desirable to link information units other than the headword in order to link idioms with their equivalents, being another idiom or a single lexeme.

Lets take as examples the above pairs: (A) "rêver" ~ "yume wo miru" and (B) "peser" ~ "taijuu/omosa wo hakaru". (A) "rêver" ~ "yume wo miru" First, the government pattern of the lexie jpn.yume.1 is described as follows [12]: (1) jpn.yume.1 X=I N no Y=II N no CI: Marie no yume (Marie is the sleeper) ryokoo no yume (ryokoo (trip) is the image of the dream) The letters X and Y are the arguments of the predicate corresponding to the lexie. The latin numbers I, II, etc. denots the deep-syntactic actants.

CII, etc, represent the columns of the government pattern described in the Explanatory and Combinatorial Dictionary.

This lexie is linked to the French lexie fra.rêve.1, and the English lexie eng.dream.1, etc. It has also as a lexical function:

Oper1(jpn.yume.1) = jpn.miru.1

This LF shows that the name "yume" can combine with the verb "miru". At the same time, the verb "rêver" corresponding to the syntagmatic expression "yume wo miru" is described in the French volume as follows:

(2) fra.rêver.1

X=I N Y=II de N CII :

"rêver d'une personne, d'une chose" means seeing someone or something during the dream. S0 (fra.rêver.1) = fra.rêve.1 S1 (fra.rêver.1) = fra.dormeur.1 Note: the verb "rêver" corresponds to at least two different lexies. The lexie fra.rêver.1 with the second argument realized by « de N » is translated in Japanese by the syntagmatic expression "yume wo miru". The lexie fra.rêver.2 with the second argument realized by « à N » means "to hope". If the lexical function Oper1(jpn.yume.1) = jpn.miru.1 could be linked to the French lexie fra.rêver.1, we would be able to establish a direct link between the syntagmatic expression "yume wo miru" and the verb "rêver"

As for the distribution of the actors, we know, thanks to the Oper1 LF numbering, that the grammatical subject of "yume wo miru" is the sleeper. Likely, by the description of the government pattern of the lexie jpn.yume.1, we see that the name can have modifiers « 1=X=N no » and « 2=Y=N no ». Here, the sleeper is already in the position of grammatical subject. Therefore, we can deduce that the modifier of "yume", i.e. the N of « N no yume » is the image that the sleeper is seeing while dreaming.

With the descriptions of the lexie jpn.yume.1 and the lexical function Oper1 (jpn.yume.1) = jpn.miru.1 on the one hand and the lexie fra.rêver.1 on the other hand, we can obtain the correspondence of the lexical usage in the two languages: « X ga Y no yume wo miru » = « X rêve de Y ». (B) "peser" ~ "taijuu/omosa wo hakaru"

For the pair "Marie pèse l'enfant" and "Marie ga kodomo no taijuu/omosa wo hakaru" (Marie weights the child), let's read first the description of the Japanese lexie jpn.taijuu.1 (weight).

(3) jpn.taijuu.1

X=I N no CI :

N is a name for a 'human' or an 'animal'. Among the LF, we will find: QSyn (jpn.taijuu.1) = jpn.omosa.1 Func1 (jpn.taijuu.1) = jpn.aru.1 (this idiom can be linked via an axie to the lexical units "pesant" and "lourd" (heavy))

= jpn.hakaru.1 For the grammatical subject of the verb "hakaru", we will know by the description of the government pattern that a noun (N) designating the individual can come in the position of a subject: (4) jpn.hakaru.1 X=I N ga Y=II N wo Z=III N de CI:

êl (hito = individual) CII:

ìxó çt (doryoukou = parameter) NAGASA (length), OMOSA (weight)... are mandatory except when can deduce them from the context. CIII: measure instrument MONOSASHI (ruler), HAKARI (balance) ... ... We will then have the semantic formula «"hito" X ga "measure instrument" Z de "doryoukou" Y wo hakaru». The verb "peser" corresponds to two different lexies. The lexie fra.peser.1 like in the sentence "Ce sac pèse 30 kg." (This bag weights 30 kg.) and the lexie fra.peser.2 like in the sentence "Pierre pèse son sac.". About the lexie fra.peser.2, the pattern is as follows: If it is possible to link the lexical function Real1(jpn.taijuu.1) = jpn.hakaru.1 with the lexie fra.peser.2, we can link the idiomatic expression « (N no) taijuu wo hakaru » and the lexie fra.peser.2. Note that this "hakaru" is put into relation with the verb "mesurer" (to measure) by another axie.

The axies and the information included in the LFs allow one to deduce the correspondence between two entities, "peser" and "taijuu/omosa wo hakaru" and, then, the correspondence of their arguments, « X peser Y » and « X ga Y no taijuu/omosa wo hakaru ».

Replacing the Axies by Interlingual Lexical Functions

Another solution would consist in replacing the axies by interlingual lexical functions. The link between the lexies fra.rêver.1 and jpn.yume.1 would then be denoted with interlingual lexical functions: S0[jpn](fra.rêver.1) = jpn.yume.1, QSyn[jpn](fra.rêve.1) = jpn.yume.1. This solution has the advantage of simplifying the of the lexies. It can be applied realistically for the construction of a bilingual dictionary but in the case of a multilingual database, it becomes difficult to manage directs links from a language to another. It is then better in that case to stay with a macrostructure of monolingual volumes interconnected.

Chosen Solution

In the last version of the monolingual microstructures XML schema [START_REF] Mangeot-Lerebours | Proposal Changes for the Monolingual XML Schema[END_REF], we suppressed the reference from the lexies to the axies in order to first simplify the maintenance and the checking of the interlingual links and also to represent only information pertaining to the language itself. Links between lexies are therefore only managed with axies. A unique identifier is assigned to each lexie when it is imported in the Papillon dictionary. Axies linking to this lexie use this identifier. If the lexie is destroyed, the identifier is not reallocated.

We propose to simplify and generalize the interlingual links system. Instead of having for each linked information unit a different interlingual link (axie, exie, ixie, etc.), we propose to:

1. link lexie headwords instead of entire lexies; 2. declare linkable the following information units: the headword, the lexical functions, the examples and the full idioms;

3. link all the different information units with the same link type: an axie; 4. link heterogeneous information units with only one axie. For example, in the previous case, we would link the lexical function (jpn.yume.1)=jpn.miru.1 with the lexie fra.rêver.1.

Conclusion

By linking heterogeneous information units included in one lexie with other units of other lexies of other languages using first an axie and then all the information possible given by the LFs, we can make closer diverging lexical units of two different languages.

Nevertheless, there are some cases that cannot be solved with this way of dealing with the divergences: when the idioms are free, thus not described by any LF. For example, the French noun "abri" (shelter) meaning that we can be safe into it is not directly translatable in Japanese. We usually find in the dictionaries "hinanjo" but it is a hyponym because it is used only in the case of an earthquake, fire or storm. The part of the meaning not covered by "hinanjo" cannot be directly translatable in Japanese. We then use varied free idioms: "chercher un abri sous un arbre" (to take shelter under a tree) would be translated by "ki no shita ni nigekomu" (to escape under a tree) ; un abri sous la pluie (a shelter under the rain), amayadori suru tokoro (where it is possible to shelter from the rain).

If the idea expressed by a periphrastic idiom in a language is lexicalized in another one, in other words, if there is a lexie with the same meaning in another language, the periphrastic idiom and the equivalent lexie must be described in a way or another in their respective monolingual volume, in order to be linked by an axie.

  trébuchet, bascule Example : Pierre pèse son sac. (Peter weighs his bag) Thus, we obtain the semantic formula « Individu X peser Y avec Z ».


Mathieu Mangeot
email: mangeot@nii.ac.jp

Kyoko Kuroda
email: kyoko.kuroda@nifty.ne.jp

Divergences interlinguistiques dans le dictionnaire multilingue Papillon

Keywords: Projet Papillon, théorie sens-texte, dictionnaire multilingue pivot, lexie, structure argumentale Papillon project, meaning-text theory, multilingual pivot dictionary, lexie, argument structure

Résumé -Abstract

Le but du projet Papillon est de construire un dictionnaire multilingue à structure pivot avec l'aide de contributeurs bénévoles travaillant en collaboration sur Internet. Les données obtenues sont disponibles publiquement. La macrostructure est composée d'un volume monolingue pour chaque langue et un volume pivot qui relie les articles monolingues par des liens interlingues. La microstructure est basée sur la lexicographie explicative et combinatoire. Chaque article est consacré à une lexie. Nous discutons ici de solutions pour résoudre le problème posé par la divergence des structures argumentales des prédicats dans un contexte multilingue. Si la lexie est un prédicat, la formule sémantique de la lexie représentera ce prédicat. Cependant, le nombre et la position des arguments peuvent varier considérablement d'une langue à l'autre. Par exemple, il y a une inversion des arguments entre le prédicat anglais «! X1 miss Y1! » et son équivalent français «! X2 manque à Y2! » avec X1=Y2 et Y1=X2. Nous proposons un moyen de noter cette divergence pour pouvoir traduire ces structures correctement.

The Papillon project aims at building a multilingual pivot dictionary by voluntary contributors in collaboration on the Internet. The data obtained is then publicly available. The macrostructure of the dictionary is composed by a monolingual volume for each language and a pivot volume which links the monolingual entries hrough interlingual links. The microstructure is based on the combinatory and explanatory lexicography, thus fairly rich and very detailed. We discuss here about how to solve the problems raised by the divergence of the predicates' argument structures in a multilingual context. If the entry is a predicate, the semantic formula describing the entry will represent this predicate. However, the number and the position of the arguments may vary a lot among languages. For example, there is a position shift in the arguments between the English predicate "X1 miss Y1" and its French equivalent "X2 manque à Y2" with X1=Y2 and Y1=X2. We propose a way to note this divergence in order to translate structures correctly.

Introduction

Le projet Papillon a pour but de créer une base lexicale multilingue comprenant entre autres l'anglais, le français, le japonais, le malais, le lao, le thaï et le vietnamien. L'accès est gratuit pourvu que l'usage ne soit pas commercial (licence de logiciel libre). Notre projet se veut utile et ouvert à la collaboration de toutes les personnes ayant un intérêt pour ces langues. La macrostructure du dictionnaire est composée d'un volume monolingue pour chaque langue et d'un volume pivot contenant des liens interlingues reliant les sens des mots composant les volumes monolingues [START_REF] Sérasset | SUBLIM: un Système Universel de Bases Lexicales Multilingues et NADIA: sa spécialisation aux bases lexicales interlingues par acceptions[END_REF][START_REF] Sérasset | Papillon Lexical Database Project: Monolingual Dictionaries & Interlingual Links[END_REF]. La microstructure des articles est basée sur la lexicographie combinatoire extraite de la théorie sens-texte [START_REF] Polguère | La théorie Sens-Texte[END_REF][START_REF] Polguère | Towards a theoretically-motivated general public dictionary of semantic derivations and collocations for French[END_REF]. La base lexicale construite à l'aide d'une plateforme de manipulation de dictionnaires (Mangeot-lerebours M. 2001) est accessible principalement par le Web. Toute personne peut consulter les données existantes et ensuite corriger/compléter ces données. Les contributions sont stockées dans l'espace privé de leur auteur jusqu'à ce qu'elles soient révisées par des spécialistes puis ensuite intégrées dans la base commune.

Jusqu'à présent, le dictionnaire Papillon ne proposait que des liens interlingues entre unités linguistiques de même type! : des lexies, des exemples ou des idiomes. Ce formalisme ne permettait pas de représenter de manière satisfaisante les divergences des structures argumentales des lexies/prédicats de langues différentes. Cette critique a été émise par de nombreuses personnes lors de plusieurs discussions informelles sur le projet papillon. Dans cet article, nous proposons donc une modification du formalisme afin de les représenter. Nous espérons aussi ouvrir la discussion sur ce thème et invitons les lecteurs de ce document à nous faire part de leurs remarques.

Présentation du dictionnaire Papillon

Macrostructure du dictionnaire

La macrostructure de la base lexicale Papillon a été définie dans [START_REF] Sérasset | SUBLIM: un Système Universel de Bases Lexicales Multilingues et NADIA: sa spécialisation aux bases lexicales interlingues par acceptions[END_REF]) et expérimentée à petite échelle pour la construction d'une petite base lexicale multilingue par [START_REF] Blanc | Une maquette de base lexicale multilingue à pivot lexical: PARAX, Lexicomatique et Dictionnairique[END_REF]. Les liens syntagmatiques et paradigmatiques privilégiés qu'entretient la lexie décrite avec d'autres lexies de la langue sont encodés au moyen de fonctions lexicales. Des fonctions lexicales particulières lient la lexie vedette aux lexies typiquement utilisées pour parler de ses arguments. Par exemple, une réalisation possible, bien que rare, du premier argument de la lexie prédicative fra.rêver.1 1 est fra.dormeur.1, ce qu'on encode au moyen de la fonction S1! : S1(fra.rêver.1) = fra.dormeur.1.

Microstructure des articles monolingues

Microstructure des liens interlingues

En premier lieu, les liens interlingues représentaient uniquement des liens de traduction entre lexies de langues différentes. Ces liens sont appelés axies (acceptions interlingues). Par exemple, la lexie française fra.meurtre.1 la lexie anglaise eng.murder.1 et la lexie japonaise jpn. 殺人.1 (satsujin) sont reliées par la même axie.

Par la suite, nous avons défini des liens interlingues pour les exemples (exies) et pour les expressions idiomatiques (ixies). Ces liens interlingues relient les exemples et expressions idiomatiques se trouvant dans les lexies. Ils ne relient pas d'autres types de lexies. Cette définition n'a pas encore été réalisée en pratique.

Problème des structures argumentaires divergentes

Lorsque deux lexies prédicatives de langues différentes sont reliés par un lien de traduction, les structures argumentaires des prédicats peuvent correspondre ou diverger. Lorsque ces structures correspondent, l'équivalent est facile à trouver pour celui qui veut traduire une phrase comportant une de ces lexies dans l'autre langue. Par exemple, pour les lexies fra.manger.1 et jpn. 2 Pour des questions de lisibilité, par la suite, nous utilisaons une transcription pour noter les lexies japonaises.

Lorsque les structures argumentaires divergent [START_REF] Kuroda | Divergences de Traduction! : cas des structures argumentales du japonais et du français[END_REF], dans certains cas, la correspondance est impossible à faire si l'on ne connaît pas les deux langues.

Différence de position argumentaire

Divergence de coalescence

Considérons ensuite deux exemples de divergence appelée coalescence entre le français et le japonais! :

Le verbe français rêver est traduit en japonais par l'expression syntagmatique «! yume wo miru! » qui signifie littéralement! : «! voir un rêve! » (yume = rêve ; miru = voir). La lexie fra.rêver.1 n'aura donc pas de lexie équivalente en japonais. Pourtant, il est parfaitement possible de traduire une phrase comprenant le verbe «! rêver! » en japonais sans perte de sens.

De même, le verbe français «! peser! » est traduit en japonais par l'expression syntagmatique «! taijuu/omosa wo hakaru! » qui signifie littéralement! : «! mesurer le poids! ». La lexie fra.peser.1 n'aura donc pas non plus de lexie équivalente en japonais. Si l'expression syntagmatique japonaise «! yume wo miru! » et l'unité lexicale française «! rêver! » se correspondent malgré leur différence configurationnelle, c'est parce qu'elles portent toutes les deux le même sens. Autrement dit, ce même sens est lexicalisé par un seul mot dans une langue et par une association d'un verbe support et d'un nom commun dans l'autre. Il est donc naturel que ces unités de même signification soient liées par une axie.Or, jusqu'à présent, la structure du dictionnaire Papillon ne permet pas de représenter directement un lien de traduction entre un mot et une expression syntagmatique.

Solutions envisagées

Encoder la divergence dans les axies

La première idée est d'encoder cette divergence dans les axies. Cela paraît cependant rapidement irréalisable car la façon de diverger varie selon les paires de langues. Par conséquent, il faudrait représenter dans les axies, les divergences entre le japonais et le français, celles entre le japonais et le malais, celles entre le français et l'anglais, etc.

De plus, la question de divergences ne paraît pas si mécanique, c'est-à-dire opérable au delà des langues. Il apparaît donc impossible de concevoir une façon de les représenter indépendamment des langues.

Enfin, les axies ont été conçues au départ comme un simple lien de traduction entre plusieurs unités. Il est donc préférable de rester dans cette optique de simplicité.

Relier des lexies avec des fonctions lexicales

Pour l'instant, seules les lexies (ou plus exactement les mots-vedette de ces lexies) sont reliées entre elles par les axies. On ne peut donc trouver que des correspondances mot à mot entre les langues.

Si l'on décrit des expressions syntagmatiques à l'intérieur d'une lexie et si ces expressions ont leurs équivalents sémantiques dans d'autres langues, il serait souhaitable de relier des unités d'information autres que celles du mot-vedette pour que les expressions soient reliées à leurs équivalents.

Reprenons comme exemples les paires citées précédemment! : (A) rêver et yume wo miru, (B) peser et taijuu/omosa wo hakaru. Pour la distribution des arguments du prédicat, on sait que, à l'aide de la numérotation de la FL Oper 1 que le sujet grammatical de «! yume wo miru! » est le dormeur. De même, par la description du régime de la lexie jpn.yume.1, on voit que le nom peut avoir les modifieurs « 1=X=N no » et « 2=Y=N no ». Ici, le dormeur étant déjà présenté en position de sujet grammatical, on peut déduire que le modifieur de yume c'est-à-dire, le N de « N no yume » est l'image que le dormeur voit en rêve.

Avec les descriptions de la lexie jpn.yume.1 et de la fonction lexicale Oper 1 (jpn.yume.1) = jpn.miru.1 d'une part, et de la lexie fra.rêver.1 d'autre part, on peut avoir la correspondance des emplois lexicaux des deux langues! : « X ga Y no yume wo miru » = « X rêve de Y ».

(B) peser et taijuu/omosa wo hakaru Les noms communs japonais «! taijuu! » et «! omosa! » sont des synonymes se traduisant par «! poids! » en français. Le verbe français «! peser! » n'est pas traduisible directement. On utilisera en japonais l'expression syntagmatique «! taijuu/omosa wo hakaru! » qui se traduit littéralement en français pas «! mesurer le poids! ».

Pour la paire «! Marie pèse l'enfant! » et «! Mari ga kodomo no taijuu/omosa wo hakaru! », regardons d'abord la description de la lexie japonaise jpn.taijuu.1 (poids en français).

( Ce que permettent d'apporter les axies et les informations recuellies des FL, ce sont, d'abord, la correspondance des deux entités prédicatives, «! peser! » et «! taijuu/omosa wo hakaru! » et, par la suite, la correspondance de leurs arguments, « X peser Y » et « X ga Y no taijuu/omosa wo hakaru ».

Remplacer les axies par des fonctions lexicales interlingues

Une autre solution consisterait à remplacer les axies par des fonctions lexicales interlingues. Le lien entre les lexies fra.rêver.1 et jpn.yume.1 se ferait alors à l'aide de fonctions lexicales interlingues! : S0[jpn](fra.rêver.1) = jpn.yume.1, QSyn[jpn](fra.rêve.1) = jpn.yume.1. Cette solution a l'avantage de simplifier la structure des lexies. Elle peut s'appliquer de manière réaliste à la construction d'un dictionnaire bilingue mais dans le cas d'une base multilingue, il devient difficile de gérer des liens directs d'une langue à l'autre. Il est préférable dans ce cas de rester sur une macrostructure formée de volumes monolingues simplement interconnectés. Il y a cependant des cas qui échappent à cette façon de traiter les divergences. Ce sont les cas où l'expression est libre, donc décrite par aucune FL. Par exemple, le nom français abri dans le sens où l'on peut se retirer pour se mettre en sûreté n'est pas traduisible directement en japonais. On trouve généralement hinanjo mais c'est un hyponyme car il ne s'emploie que pour des dangers tels que tremblement de terre, incendie ou tempête. La partie du sens de abri qui n'est pas couverte par hinanjo ne peut pas être traduite directement en japonais. On a donc recours à des expressions périphrastiques ou à des tournures variées! : chercher un abri sous un arbre se traduirait par «! ki no shita ni nigekomu! » (s'enfuir sous un arbre) ; un abri sous la pluie, «! amayadori suru tokoro! » (là où l'on s'abrite de la pluie).

Solution retenue

Si l'idée exprimée par une expression périphrastique dans une langue est lexicalisée dans d'autres langues, autrement dit, s'il existe une lexie exprimant la même idée dans une autre langue, il faut que cette expression périphrastique et la lexie équivalente soient décrites d'une manière ou d'une autre dans leur volume monolingue respectif, de sorte qu'elles peuvent être reliées par une axie.

Figure 1 !

 1 Figure 1! : Utilisation de lien inter axies pour représenter les phénomènes contrastifs de l'équivalence lexicale. Cette macrostructure est fondée sur la notion d'acceptions. Chaque dictionnaire monolingue est vu comme un ensemble d'acceptions d'une langue. Les liens entre les langues sont établis grâce

  Examinons d'abord un exemple simple de différence de position argumentaire entre le français et l'anglais! : Lexie fra.manquer.1(X,Y) « individu X manque à individu Y». Lexie eng.miss.1(X,Y) « individual Y miss individual X» Les arguments X et Y sont inversés lorsque l'on passe du français à l'anglais.

  le régime de la lexie jpn.yume.1 est décrit d'après (Mel'čuk! I. et al. 1995, p 140)! : Marie no yume (Marie est le dormeur, donc S1 = fra.dormeur.1) CII! : ryokoo no yume (ryokoo (voyage) est l'image du rêve) Les lettres X, etY sont les arguments du prédicat correspondant à la lexie. Les chiffres romains I, II, etc. sont les arguments logiques du prédicat. CI, CII, etc, représentent les colonnes du régime décrit dans le DEC. Cette lexie est reliée par une axie aux lexies fra.rêve.1 pour le français, eng.dream.1 pour l'anglais, etc. Elle a aussi comme fonction lexicale! : Oper 1 (jpn.yume.1) = jpn.miru.1 La FL Oper 1 modélise le fait que le verbe «! miru! » est le verbe support du nom «! yume! ». Parallèlement, le verbe français «! rêver! » correspondant à l'expression syntagmatique «! yume wo miru! » est décrit dans le volume français comme suit! : d'une personne, d'une chose! » veut dire la voir en rêve. S0 (fra.rêver.1) = fra.rêve.1 S1 (fra.rêver.1) = fra.dormeur.1 Note! : le verbe rêver correspond à au moins deux lexies différentes. La lexie fra.rêver.1 dont le deuxième argument se réalise par « de N » se traduit en japonais par l'expression syntagmatique yume wo miru ». La lexie fra.rêver.2 dont le deuxième argument se réalise par « à N » dont le sens est plutôt «! espérer! ». Si le triplet composé de la fonction lexicale, d'un mot-clé et d'une valeur comme Oper 1 (jpn.yume.1) = jpn.miru.1 pouvait être reliée à la lexie française fra.rêver.1, on pourrait établir le lien direct entre l'expression syntagmatique «! yume wo miru! » et le verbe «! rêver! ».

  nom désignant 'humain' ou 'animal'. Parmi les FL, on aura entre autres! : QSyn (jpn.taijuu.1) = jpn.omosa.1 Func1 (jpn.taijuu.1) = jpn.aru.1 (cette unité lexicale peut être reliée via une axie aux unités lexicales «! pesant! » et «! lourd! ») Real1(jpn.taijuu.1) = jpn.hakaru.1 Pour le sujet grammatical du verbe «! hakaru! » on saura par la description du régime de ce verbe qu'un N désignant l'individu peut venir en position de sujet! : 度量衡 (doryoukou = paramètre) NAGASA (longueur), OMOSA. (poids), TAKASA (hauteur)… Ces paramètres sont obligatoires sauf que le contexte premet de les préciser. CIII! : instrument de mesure MONOSASHI(règle), HAKARI(balance) ... ... On aura donc la formule sémantique « Individu X ga instrument de mesure Z de paramètre Y wo hakaru ». Quant au verbe «! peser! », son régime est représenté comme suit! : ) = balance, trébuchet, bascule Exemple! : Pierre pèse son sac. D'où la formule sémantique « Individu X peser Y avec Z ». Note! : le verbe peser correspond à deux lexies différentes. La lexie fra.peser.1 comme dans la phrase ce sac pèse 30 kg et la lexie fra.peser.2 comme dans la phrase Pierre pèse son sac. S'il est possible de relier la fonction lexicale Real1(jpn.taijuu.1) = jpn.hakaru.1 avec la lexie fra.peser.2, on peut faire le pont entre la formule sémantique « (N no) taijuu wo hakaru » et la lexie fra.peser.2. Notons que ce hakaru est mis en relation avec le verbe mesurer par une autre axie.

  unités d'information hétérogènes contenues dans un article représentant une lexie avec d'autres unités d'articles d'autres langues au moyen d'une axie d'une part et en tirant tout le parti possible des informations contenues dans les FL d'autre part, nous pouvons rapprocher des unités lexicales divergentes de deux langues différentes.

  Nous adoptons ici une nouvelle convention qui consiste à écrire l'identifiant unique de la lexie pour parler de celle-ci. Cet identifiant est construit en concaténant le code à 3 lettres ISO 639-2/T de la langue de la lexie (ex : fra pour français, eng pour l'anglais, jpn pour le japonais, etc.), suivi d'un point '.', suivi du mot-vedette de la lexie, suivi eventuellement d'un souligné '_' et d'un entier en chiffres romains dans le cas de vocables homographes d'un même vocable, suivi enfin d'un entier en chiffres arabes servant d'identificateur unique pour distinguer les lexies homographes à l'intérieur d'un vocable. Nous utilisons le point (caractère '.') comme séparateur car il est accepté dans les identificateurs XML à l'inverse des '$' et '#'. Le mot-vedette de la lexie doit être écrit en caractères latins ou en idéogrammes. Pour les langues utilisant des alphabets non latins le thaï ou l'arabe, nous devons fixer une transcription en lettres latines. Pour plus de précisions, voir les règles de production d'un Name dans la recommandation XML 1.0 du W3C. Avec la nouvelle convention, nous écrirons donc la lexie fra.meurtre.1. Dans le cas de vocables homographes, par exemple campagne (électorale) et campagne (où broutent les vaches), nous écrirons : fra.campagne.I.1 et fra.campagne.II.1.

べる.1 2 (taberu), les structures argumentaires des prédicatscorrespondent. Elles sont trivialement parallèles! : « individu X manger Y » et «人XがYを べる»(hito X ga Y wo taberu). Le X français correspond au X japonais, de même pour le Y. Un utilisateur voulant traduire une phrase d'une langue à l'autre peut facilement faire la correspondance. Par exemple, la traduction de la phrase «! Je mange du pain.! » en japonais ne nécessite pas de connaissances particulières sur cette langue! : X = je = 私 (watashi); Y = pain = パン (pan). D'où la phrase en japonais 私がパンを べる (watashi ga pan wo taberu).

1 La convention habituelle pour distinguer une lexie d'une chaîne de caractères ou d'un mot est d'écrire son nom en majuscules. Par exemple, on écrira la lexie MEURTRE pour parler de la lexie ayant comme mot-vedette meurtre. Cette convention nous paraît caduque dans le cas d'un dictionnaire multilingue puisque de nombreuses langues comme le japonais, le chinois ou le thaï n'ont pas de distinction majuscule/minuscule.

  Dans la dernière version du schéma des microstructures monolingues[START_REF] Mangeot-Lerebours | Proposal Changes for the Monolingual XML Schema[END_REF], nous avons supprimé la référence aux axies à partir des lexies afin d'une part de simplifier la maintenance et la vérification des liens interlingues et d'autre part, pour ne représenter que des informations propres à une langue dans la microstructure monolingue. Les liens entre lexies sont donc gérés uniquement avec les axies. Un identifiant unique est assigné à chaque lexie lors de son importation dans le dictionnaire Papillon. Les axies reliant cette lexie utilisent ensuite cet identifiant.Nous proposons de simplifier et de généraliser le système de liens interlingues. Plutôt que d'avoir pour chaque unité d'information reliée un lien interlingue différent (axie, exie, ixie, etc.), unités d'information hétérogènes avec une même axie. Par exemple, relier le triplet composé de la fonction lexicale Oper 1 , du mot-clé «! yume! » et de la valeur «! jpn.miru.1! » Oper 1 (yume)=jpn.miru.1 avec la lexie fra.rêver.1.Pour implémenter cette solution, il suffit que les unités que l'on veut relier portent un identifiant unique comme celui des lexies. Ces identifiants sont fabriqués à partir de l'identifiant unique de la lexie auquel on concatène un identifiant unique de l'unité d'information dans la lexie. Par exemple, pour l'exemple numéro 2 de la lexie japonaise jpn.yume.1, on obtiendra l'identifiant suivant! : jpn.yume.1.e2; pour le triplet Oper 1 (jpn.yume.1) = jpn.miru.1, on obtiendra l'identifiant suivant! : jpn.yume.1.oper1.jpn.miru.1.

	nous proposons! :
	1.	de relier les mots-vedettes des lexies au lieu des lexies entières ;
	2.	de déclarer reliables les unités d'information suivantes! : le mot-vedette, les fonctions
		lexicales, les exemples et les expressions idiomatiques;
	3.	de relier toutes les unités d'information avec le même type de lien, les axies;
	4.	de relier des


Mathieu Mangeot-Lerebours
email: mangeot@nii.ac.jp

How to Import an Existing XML Dictionary Into the Papillon Plateform

The Papillon project aims at building a multilingual lexical database for extracting dictionaries. To avoid starting from scratch, we plan to recuperate existing dictionaries(marking explicitely all the possible information) and integrate them into the Papillon one (converting the structure into the Papillon structure). The plateform used to manage the Papillon dictionary [2] can also manage any other dictionary as soon as it is encoded in XML. This paper presents the steps necessary to recuperate an existing dictionary and to install it on the Papillon plateform . It will be then available for consultation through the Papillon consultation interface.

Introduction

The Papillon project aims at building a multilingual lexical database for extracting dictionaries. To avoid starting from scratch, we plan to recuperate existing dictionaries(marking explicitely all the possible information) and integrate them into the Papillon one (converting the structure into the Papillon structure). The plateform used to manage the Papillon dictionary [START_REF] Mangeot-Lerebours | Environnements centralis s et distribu s pour lexicographes et lexicologues en contexte multilingue. Th se de nouveau doctorat[END_REF] can also manage any other dictionary as soon as it is encoded in XML. This paper presents the steps necessary to recuperate an existing dictionary and to install it on the Papillon plateform . It will be then available for consultation through the Papillon consultation interface.

Conversion of the structure into XML 2.1 Conversion of the XML entities

The conersion of XML entities must be done before any other conversion. The & must be converted before the others otherwise the & will create an infinite loop.

"&" => "&" "'" => "'" "<" => "<" ">" => ">"

Information Tagging

In this step, we need to encode explicitely a maximum of the dictionary information. If the original structure of the dictionary is flat, we have to create a new deep structure for this dictionary with new XML tags. we do not need to use the Papillon XML tags neither to convert into the Papillon structure. This conversion is another step. Nevertheless, we encourage people to use as much as possible the CDM/DML tags used as common pointers into heterogeneous structures. For more informaiton about CDM/ DML, please read the LREC paper [START_REF] Mangeot-Lerebours | An XML Markup Language Framework for Lexical Databases Environments: the Dictionary Markup Language[END_REF].

If the dictionary has been generated automatically by a program (it means that there are no errors in the structure) and/or the structure is very simple you can convert the dictionary directly using a regexp tool like perl scripts or a word processor like Word or BBEdit.

If the dictionary is hand written and/or the structure is complicated, you may use the RECUPDIC recuperation method with the Hgrammar compilator developped by Hai Doan during his Ph.D. Thesis (please read the paper from Aree Teeraparbseree [START_REF]Aree Teeraparbseree A Practical Guide to Lexical Data Acquisition with Recupdic Proceedings of Papillon[END_REF] for more information on this tool).

Conversion of the encoding

You don t need to convert your file if the encoding is already accepted by the XML SAX parser (eg: UTF-8, ISO-8859-1).

For other encodings, you must first find a tool to convert them to utf-8. For MacOs, the tool cyclone is free for any use (please see http://homepage.mac.com/tkukiel/ cyclone.html for more info). For UNIX/LINUX plateforms, you can use the uniconv program or the perl module cjkvconv.pl. The next lines show how to convert a document from the Japanese EUC encoding into the UTF-8 encoding.

>uniconv -o output-UTF-8 -I EUC_JP -O UTF8 input-EUC >cjkvconv -ie -ou8 < input-EUC > output-UTF-8

If you convert an XML file, be careful to change the encoding of the XML header to UTF-8: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> 4 Writing the metadata files

Editors and validation

The integration of a dictionary into the Papillon plateform is done via XML documents describing the metadata of the dictionary. These documents are described by the DML XML schema. This schema and XML examples are available online at http://wwwclips.imag.fr/geta/services/dml/dml.xsd.

To write an XML metadata file, you can use any text editor. Nevertheless, we recommend to use an XML editor like XML Spy to avoid XML syntax errors. XML Spy for PC available at http://www.xmlspy.com for a 30 days free evaluation version.

The best tool is an XML schema validating editor. The editor will check online the validity of your documents thanks to the URL indicated at the root element of the XML documents with the xsi:schemaLocation XML attribute :

The dictionary metadata file

The dictionary metadata file describes the macrostructure of the dictionaries, ie the organisation and links between the volumes composing the dictionary. It describes also the metainformation available on the dictionary: creation date, authors, etc.

All the reference addresses that point to other local files of the dictionary must be relative. ie the path must start from where the dictionary-metadata file is located. eg: indicate <volume-metadata-ref href= myDict_fra-metadata.xml /> instead of <volumemetadata-ref href= /Users/Projects/Dicts/myDict/myDict_fra-metadata.xml />.

The languages are represented by the ISO 639-2/T (T for terminology) standard which uses 3 letters code instead of two letters code to indicate the name of the languages eg eng for English, fra for French, jpn for Japanese, deu for German, etc. We extended the standard with a few codes for special puroses. For a complete list of language codes, please refer directly to the DML schema.

The file must be valid with the <dictionary-metadata> element of the dml XML schema. An example of the French-English-Malay monodirectional dictionary metadata is available online at http://www-clips.imag.fr/geta/services/dml/FeM-metadata.xml. It should be used as a starting point for writing new dictionary metadata files.

Below is a commented example of a dictionary metadata file for a bilingual bidirectional French-Vienamese dictionary.

<dictionary-metadata

First, you indicate the namespaces of the DML schema for automatic validation purpose. You should not modify these lines. Then, you describe the meta-information on the dictionary with several attributes. The category of the dictionary can be monolingual , bilingual or multilingual .

category="bilingual"

Creation date of the dictionary. creation-date="21/01/02 00:00:00"

Installation date of the dictionary. Date where the metadata file is created.

installation-date="21/01/02 00:00:00"

Full name of the dictionary.

fullname="Duc's Vietnamese-French Dictionary" Short nickname of the dictionary.

name="VietDict"

Owner of the dictionary.

owner="Vietnam, under GPL"

Macrostructure type of the dictionary. Can be monodirectional , bidirectional , pivot or mixed .

type="bidirectional">

The element languages lists the languages present in the dictionary. <languages> <source-language d:lang="fra"/> <source-language d:lang="vie"/> <target-language d:lang="fra"/> <target-language d:lang="vie"/> </languages>

The element contents describes with a text the contents of a dictionary <contents>general vocabulary but a bit old French</contents>

The element domain describes the domain of a dictionary e.g. : general, medecine, computer science, etc. Maybe it could be a closed list...

<domain>general</domain>

The element source describes from where does the dictionary come from, who gave it to the database.

<source>Ho Ngoc Duc -Uni-Leipzig, www.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/ ~duc </source> <authors>group of vietnamese students and researchers, www.saigon.com/~vietdict/project.html, converted by Jerome GODARD jerome@nii.ac.jp </authors>

The element legal describes the legal rights attached to the use of this dictionary e.g. :research purpose only, public, GPL, open source, etc.

<legal>under GPL</legal>

The element is used for general text comments on a dictionary. The element administrators list all the administrators of the dictionary, ie people allowed to modify the files. The element volumes lists all the volumes/files of a dictionary with an xlink URL hypertex reference. The element links indicates the links between the volumes files in the dictionary. It is typically used to describe a pivot dictionary. This dictionary does not have specific links between its volumes, therefore the element link is empty.

<links/>

We indicate here the element links for the Papillon pivot dictionary. The element other-files gives info on other files about the dictionary. The element xsl-stylesheet references an xsl stylesheet file with an xlink. This file is used to display the entries in HTML. The section 5 describes how to write an XSL stylesheet for a dictionary.

<xsl-stylesheet xlink:href="VietDict-view.xsl"/> </dictionary-metadata>

The volume metadata file(s)

The volume metadata file is used to describe parts of the structure of the entries with the CDM elements [START_REF] Mangeot-Lerebours | An XML Markup Language Framework for Lexical Databases Environments: the Dictionary Markup Language[END_REF] and metadata information specific to the volume.

The file must be valid with the <volume-metadata> element of the dml XML schema. An example of the French-English-Malay volume metadata is available online at http:/ /www-clips.imag.fr/geta/services/dml/FeM_eng_fra_msa-metadata.xml. It should be used as a starting point for writing new volume metadata files. Below is a commented example of the French->Vietnamese volume metadata file of a bilingual bidirectional French-Vienamese dictionary.

<volume-metadata

First, you indicate the namespaces, same as above. Then, you describe the meta-information on the volume with several attributes.

The attribute location indicates if the volume is stored locally ie you will upload it to the Papillon server database (value local ) or if it is a remote server, ie the papillon application will connect to the remote server with a wrapper (value remote ). In our case, we will use only the local value. Installation date of the dictionary. Date where the metadta file is written. installation-date="21/01/02 00:00:00" Name of the volume.

name="VietDict_fra_vie"

This is the name of the database table that will be created for this volume. Some databases (like Postgres) does not accept characters like _ or -so the best is to use only the 26 alphabet small letters.

dbname="vietdictfravie"

Version number of the volume.

version="1"

Source and target languages of the volume.

source-language="fra" target-languages="vie">

The Common Dictionary Markup CDM elements are used as common pointers into an unknown structure. These pointers will be used for parsing and database table keys for indexing and querying. The elements cdm-volume, cdm-entry and cdm-headword are compulsory. For each CDM element, you indicate the dictionary equivalent information. The attribute element indicates which is the correspondent element in the dictionary structure that tags the information. If this information is tagged also by an attribute, the attribute attribute indicates the name of the attribute. Here, the entry id is indicated with the attribute id of the element entry . For more information about the CDM elements, please read [START_REF] Mangeot-Lerebours | An XML Markup Language Framework for Lexical Databases Environments: the Dictionary Markup Language[END_REF].

<cdm-elements> <cdm-volume element="dictionary"/> <cdm-entry element="article"/> <cdm-entry-id element="article" attribute="id"/> <cdm-headword element="word"/> <cdm-pos element="part-of-speech"/> <cdm-translation d:lang="vie" element="trans"/>

The element corpus is a special CDM element. It indicates if all the text of the entry can be searched as a corpus or not. The element administrators list all the administrators of the volume, ie people allowed to modify the files.

Writing the XSL stylesheets

Your dictionary is now encoded in XML and ready to be uploaded. In order to be displayed into the Papillon server, you need to write an XSL stylesheet that will be applied by default on the dictionary entries.

You can write a general XSL stylesheet for all the volumes of your dictionary and then an XSL stylesheet for each of the volumes for elements depending on the volumes. The stylesheets will be applied in cascade by default if the user did not select one precise stylesheet. The dictionary stylesheet wil be applied first, then the volume stylesheet and finally the default Papillon stylesheet.

for the moment, you have to write the XSL stylesheets by hands but we plan in the future to automatically generate the default XSL stylesheet from the CDM description in the metadata file.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" standalone="yes"?> <xsl:stylesheet version="

Upload into te Papillon Server

Once all your files are ready and validated, you olny need to upload the dictionary metadata file. The other files (Volume metadata files, data entries, XSL stylesheets) are linked from the dicitonary metadata file and hence will be automatically uploaded.

For the moment, the application is only able to upload files accessibles via a public URL, so all your files must be accessible via a public URL, ie be on a public web server.

To upload the dictionary metadata file and all the other files, you have to be in the admin group. You logon to the papillon server and access to the AdminDictionaries.po page. There, if you want to upload all the files ie also volumes and entries, you check the appropriate checkboxes. Then you push the OK button and the upload starts.

If you want to manage separately volume metadata files, you can access to the Admin-Volumes.po page. You still need to be in the admin group. The same is applicatble for the entries files manageable from the AdminEntries.po page.

Conclusion

The papillon plateform is built to handle any dictionary as soon as it is encoded in XML. One could use its own proper Papillon application to manage its own proper dictionaries. The plateform is still at the early stages of the developments.

We plan in the future to implement a compilator for the SUBLIM extended language that could generate the whole code of tha application and the description of the dictionaries.

  <comments> we have a letter from Duc confirming Papillon can use those data </comments>

  <administrators> <user-ref name="Mathieu.Mangeot"/> </administrators>

  <other-files> <file xlink:href="vietdict.html">Installation Instructions of the original Duc Software</file> </other-files>

  Creation date of the volume. creation-date="21/01/02 00:00:00" Number of entries in the volume. hw-number="47106"

  <administrators> <user-ref name="Mathieu.Mangeot"/> </administrators> Finally, the element volume-ref references with an xlink the volume file containing the list of entries. <volume-ref xlink:href="vietDict_fra_vie-UTF8.xml" source-language="fra"/> </volume-metadata>

<dictionary-metadata xsi:schemaLocation="http://www-clips.imag.fr/geta/services/dml""

	If your editor does not check the validity online, you can use the online W3C XML
	Schema validator: http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema.

xmlns='http://www-clips.imag.fr/geta/services/dml' xmlns:d='http://www-clips.imag.fr/geta/services/dml' xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www-clips.imag.fr/geta/services/dml http

  ://www-clips.imag.fr/geta/services/dml/dml.xsd"

  These two template are the default template. If no special template is applied, it copies the element and attributes as is to the output. You shouldnot modify them.Then, for each element of the dictionary, you specify a template. For the CDM-elements you indicated above, your template should add the corresponding CDM elements (here prefixed by d:).You can also include any text string or HTML tag as soon as it is XML compliant (ie an open tag has always a closing tag).

	<xsl:element name="{name()}"><xsl:apply-templates
	select="@*|*|text()"/></xsl:element>
	</xsl:template>
	<xsl:template match="@*">
	<xsl:copy/>
	</xsl:template>
	The root template sould also not be modifed.
	<xsl:template match="/">

	<xsl:apply-templates/>

	</xsl:template>
	<xsl:template match="fem-entry">
	<d:entry>
	<xsl:apply-templates/>
	</d:entry>
	</xsl:template>
	<xsl:template match="FRENCH_CAT">
	<xsl:text> </xsl:text>

	<d:pos>
	<xsl:apply-templates/>
	</d:pos>
	</xsl:template>
	1.0" xmlns:d='http://www-clips.imag.fr/geta/services/dml' </xsl:stylesheet>
	xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
	xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
	The output is also XML because other stylesheets will be applied before the HTML
	display.
	<xsl:template match="*" priority="-1">

<xsl:output method="xml" encoding="utf-8" indent="no"/>


domain: info.info-cl info shs

text:
Mutsuko Tomokiyo
email: mutsuko.tomokiyo@imag.fr

Mathieu Mangeot
email: mathieu.mangeot@imag.fr

Emmanuel Planas
email: emmanuel.planas@imag.fr

Papillon : a Project of Lexical Database for English, French and Japanese, using Interlingual Links

This paper presents a new project, called Papillon [Papillon00]. Its goal is to build a French-English-Japanese multilingual lexical database by using interlingual links and to extract from it digital bilingual French-Japanese and Japanese-French dictionaries. These dictionaries will be available under the terms of an open source licence.

This project, initiated by some computational linguists, aims at being useful and open to all those who are interested in Japanese and French.

A seminar was organized on the 10-12 of August 2000 in Tokyo [Planas00]. It was devoted to discussions aiming at reaching a general consensus on the structure and content of the database, and to decide some technical aspects of database development, i.e. database configuration, contents of the entries and link between the entries.

Introduction

There are few French-Japanese usage dictionaries, which are really usable and useful for French speakers. The main problem is that the original Japanese script and the romaji phonetic transcription are present together only in very small dictionaries. Also, dictionaries never contain numeric specifiers, which are as important in Japanese as gender and number in French. On the other hand, the information available in paper dictionaries does not exist in machine readable forms, or is not accessible on line.

The lack of bilingual resources is also an obstacle to develop linguistic software applications, for which adapted dictionaries are a need. As an example, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone in Japan or Lexiquest in France have to develop their own dictionaries in a separate and time-consuming effort. In the academic world, this implies that applications that have been created for French and Japanese offer only a reduced scope, while good English-Japanese pieces of software are available.

Nevertheless, it is a true fact that Japan is very interested in the French language. Conversely, a growing number of French individuals invest much energy to learn Japanese. There is a vacuum to be filled.

The leveraging of communication that Internet offers allows one to think that a convenient digital dictionary could be produced by a general cooperation between linguists, translators, computer scientists, etc., working together through Internet.

A similar project between English and Japanese has been active for about a decade. This project has allowed the effective building of a free Japanese-English dictionary, available through an Internet server. This Edict project has been created and supported by Pr. Jim Breen from Monash University, Australia [START_REF] Breen | EDICT Japanese-English Dictionary by Jim Breen[END_REF]. The current JMDict dictionary comprises now 70,000 entries of common vocabulary, a specific kanji dictionary, and around twenty specialized dictionaries (biology, law, etc).

A different project, fed by volunteers, is supported by NEC corporation. Its aim is to increase the dictionaries used by the NEC translation tool [NEC00], and to bring in new entries on a constant way.

We should also mention the SAIKAM project [START_REF] Vuthichai Ampornaramveth | Implementation of an Internet-Based Dictionary Development Environment: SAIKAM[END_REF] a cooperation between NII in Tokyo and NECTEC in Bangkok, active since about 5 years, where Thai students working or having worked in Japan have built a sizable Japanese-Thai online dictionary through Internet.

In such a context, we started planning a French-English-Japanese lexical database. Here are described the architecture of the database, the structure of the entries and the methodology adopted for the project.

Architecture of the Database

The database will be built using a pivot architecture [START_REF] Sérasset | Interlingual Lexical Organisation for Multilingual Lexical Databases in NADIA[END_REF]. The monolingual dictionaries will be linked only through a pivot dictionary of interlingual links called acceptions. These acceptions will also be linked together by refinement links. They may also be translated into the UNL language [START_REF]Universal Networking Language[END_REF].

Each sense or meaning of each entry of a monolingual dictionary is linked to one or more acceptions of the pivot dictionary. For example, in French « carte » has two meanings: « carte à jouer (card) » and « carte géographique (map) ». The entry « carte » will consequently be linked to two "lexies" (corresponding to 2 word senses) in the French monolingual dictionary, which in turn will be linked to 2 acceptions in the pivot dictionary: in the example, the first has number 343, with the corresponding UNL "UW" (universal word) «card(icl>play)», and the second one has number 345, with UW «map(fld>geography)».

Structure of the monolingual dictionaries

The structure of the entries or microstructure of the monolingual dictionaries is based on the structure used for the formal lexical database DiCo [START_REF] Polguère | La théorie Sens-Texte[END_REF] of the OLST laboratory in Université de Montréal. The encoding methodology is directly borrowed from the explanatory and combinatorial lexicology, which is part of the meaning-text theory [Melc'uk97].

The dictionaries will be encoded in XML to facilitate readability and conversion into various target formats.

Building methodology

The building methodology of the lexical database builds on one hand on the reuse of existing data, the French-English-Malay dictionary [START_REF] Gut | Kamus Perancis-Melayu Dewan, dictionnaire français-malais[END_REF] and the Japanese-English dictionary of Jim Breen [START_REF] Breen | EDICT Japanese-English Dictionary by Jim Breen[END_REF], and on the other hand on the contribution of volunteers working through the Internet.

Different steps are planned. The first step will be to prepare a "lexical soup" by merging the two dictionaries thanks to the presence of English. This merging operation will produce correct as well as incorrect acceptions (interlingual links).

These wrong acceptions will be corrected or deleted by lexicologists.

Then the voluntary contributors will index new entries and the lexicologists will correct and integrate them into the database. Different kind of contributors can work on the database: • specialists of one language will write the monolingual entries;

• people with good knowledge of French and Japanese like translators will work on the links between the monolingual entries and the acceptions;

• people with good knowledge of UNL will translate the acceptions into UNL [START_REF]Universal Networking Language[END_REF].

Dictionaries produced

Several monolingual or bilingual dictionaries can then be extracted from the database. Different types are needed: for human use, via database and plugin functionalities or via usual dictionary formats, and for machine use.

For human use, via database and plugin functionalities

Persons that interact in foreigner languages often can access computers. One of the aims of this dictionary is then to provide them with a direct help, within their editor, browser, or their daily used personal digital assistant.

For human use, via usual dictionary formats

We plan to automatically derive from the database digital presentations for web consultation and paper edition. The FeM and JMDict formats are the first targeted formats.

For machine use

The terminology resources available for building lingware (linguistic software) are almost null between Japanese and French. The rare available ones have to be radically restructured and augmented. The orientation of the Papillon lexical database towards possible use by machines will encourage the realization of lingware including both languages, by providing a first support for such projects.

Conclusion

Finally, it should be stressed that such an endeavor will not only need the dedication of as many volunteer contributors as possible, but some stable support, in the form of a server and, more difficult, of a central team of experts charged of "refining the raw ore" of individual contributions.

That team does not have to be in a single place, but convenient groupware tools should be developed for it.


Mathieu Mangeot
email: mathieu.mangeot@imag.fr

Papillon Lexical Database Project: Monolingual Dictionaries & Interlingual Links

Keywords: dictionary, lexical database, multilingual, lexicologist, lexicographer, French, Japanese

This paper presents a new research and development project called Papillon. It started as a French-Japanese cooperation between laboratories GETA/CLIPS (Grenoble, France) and NII (Tokyo, Japan). Its goal is to build a multilingual lexical database and to extract from it digital bilingual dictionaries.

The database is built with monolingual dictionaries, one for each language of the database, linked to an interlingual dictionary. The pivot architecture of the database is based on Gilles Sérasset's Ph.D. thesis. The structure of the monolingual dictionaries is based on the lexical work done by Igor Melc'uk and Alain Polguère.

From the lexical database, it is planned to derive user customized bilingual dictionaries in multiple target formats. It will be possible to generate human usage dictionaries as well as specialized dictionaries for machine translation software. These dictionaries will be available under the terms of an open source license. This project, initiated by some computational linguists, aims at being useful and open to all those who are interested in Japanese and French. It is also opened to any other language. Moreover, the pivot architecture of the database will facilitate the addition of new languages and save translation efforts.

Introduction

There are few French-Japanese usage dictionaries, which are really usable and useful for French speakers. The main problem is that the original Japanese script and the rômaji phonetic transcription are present together only in very small dictionaries. Also, dictionaries never contain numeric specifiers, which are as important in Japanese as gender and number in French. On the other hand, the information available in paper dictionaries does not exist in machine-readable forms, or is not accessible on line.

The lack of bilingual resources is also an obstacle to develop linguistic software applications, for which adapted dictionaries are a need. As an example, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone in Japan or Lexiquest in France have to develop their own dictionaries in a separate and timeconsuming effort. In the academic world, this implies that applications that have been created for French and Japanese offer only a reduced scope, while good English-Japanese pieces of software are available.

Nevertheless, it is a true fact that Japan is very interested in the French language. Conversely, a growing number of French individuals invest much energy to learn Japanese. There is a vacuum to be filled.

The leveraging of communication that Internet offers allows one to think that a convenient digital dictionary could be produced by a general cooperation between linguists, translators, computer scientists, etc., working together through Internet.

A similar project between English and Japanese has been active for about a decade. This project has allowed the effective building of a free Japanese-English dictionary, available through an Internet server. This Edict project has been created and supported by Pr. Jim Breen from Monash University, Australia [b2]. The current JMDict dictionary comprises now 70,000 entries of common vocabulary, a specific kanji dictionary, and around twenty specialized dictionaries (biology, law, etc).

A different project, fed by volunteers, is supported by NEC Corporation. Its aim is to increase the dictionaries used by the NEC translation tool [b3], and to bring in new entries on a constant way.

We should also mention the SAIKAM project [START_REF] Vuthichai Ampornaramveth | Implementation of an Internet-Based Dictionary Development Environment: SAIKAM[END_REF], [b5] cooperation between NII (Tokyo, Japan) and NECTEC (Bangkok, Thailand) active since about 5 years, where Thai students working or having worked in Japan have built a sizable Japanese-Thai online dictionary through Internet.

In such a context, the GETA/CLIPS laboratory (Grenoble, France) and the National Institute of Informatics (Tokyo, Japan) started a research and development project in order to plan and implement a French-English-Japanese lexical database. Here are described the architecture of the database, the structure of the entries and the methodology adopted for the project. jouer (card) " and " carte géographique (map) ". The entry " carte " will consequently be linked to two "lexies" (corresponding to 2 word senses) in the French monolingual dictionary, which in turn will be linked to 2 acceptions in the pivot dictionary: in the example, the first has number 343, with the corresponding UNL "UW" (universal word) "card(icl>play)", and the second one has number 345, with UW "map(fld>geography)".

<axi id="a001"> <lexies> <lexy lang="fra" ressource='papillon-fr.xml' idref="meurtre#n.m.@1" /> </lexies> <external_references> <UWs ressource="UNL-fr.unl"> <uw idref="murder" /> </UWs> </external_references> </axi>

Example of an interlingual acception encoded in XML

Structure of the monolingual dictionaries

The structure of the entries or microstructure of the monolingual dictionaries is based on the structure used for the formal lexical database DiCo [START_REF] Polguère | La théorie Sens-Texte[END_REF] of the OLST laboratory in Université de Montréal. The encoding methodology is directly borrowed from the explanatory and combinatorial lexicology, which is part of the meaning-text theory [START_REF] Mel'cuk | Vers une linguistique Sens-Texte. Leçon inaugurale[END_REF].

Full idioms: _appel au meurtre_ _crier au meurtre_

The dictionaries will be encoded in XML to facilitate readability and conversion into various target formats.

Building methodology

The building methodology of the lexical database builds on one hand on the reuse of existing data, the French-English-Malay dictionary [START_REF] Gut | Kamus Perancis-Melayu Dewan, dictionnaire français-malais[END_REF], [b1] and the Japanese-English dictionary of Jim Breen [b2], and on the other hand on the contribution of volunteers working through the Internet.

Different steps are planned: The first step is the integration of existing resources. It consists in preparing a "lexical soup" by merging the two dictionaries thanks to the presence of English. This merging operation will produce correct as well as incorrect acceptions (interlingual links). These wrong acceptions will be corrected or deleted by lexicologists.

Then the voluntary contributors will index new entries and the lexicologists will correct and integrate them into the database. It will create a cycle of edition/correction/modification of the entries between the lexicographers/contributors and the lexicologists. Different kind of contributors can work on the database:

• specialists of one language will write the monolingual entries;

• people with good knowledge of French and Japanese like translators will work on the links between the monolingual entries and the acceptions;

• people with good knowledge of UNL will translate the acceptions into UNL [START_REF]Universal Networking Language[END_REF].

Dictionaries produced

Several monolingual or bilingual dictionaries can then be extracted from the database. Different types are needed: for human use, via database and plug in functionalities or via usual dictionary formats, and for machine use.

For human use, via database and plug in functionalities

Persons that interact in foreigner languages often can access computers. One of the aims of this dictionary is then to provide them with a direct help, within their editor, browser, or their daily used personal digital assistant.

For human use, via usual dictionary formats

We plan to automatically derive from the database digital presentations for web consultation and paper edition. The FeM [b1] and JMDict [b2] formats are the first targeted formats.

For machine use

The terminology resources available for building lingware (linguistic software) are almost null between Japanese and French. The rare available ones have to be radically restructured and augmented. The orientation of the Papillon lexical database towards possible use by machines will encourage the realization of lingware including both languages, by providing a first support for such projects.

Conclusion

The pivot architecture allows an easy integration of new languages because the reuse of existing links will save a lot of time consuming efforts. The Thai language is already about to integrate the project through a cooperation with Kasetsart University (KU/Thailand), and National Electronics and Computer Technology Center (NECTEC/Thailand).

The open source license makes all the data available to anyone. Furthermore, we will be able to generate multiple formats from the lexical database.

1 .

 1 Name of the lexical unit: MEURTRE 2. Grammatical properties: nom, masc 3. Semantic formula: action de tuer: _ PAR L'individu X DE L'individu Y 4. Government pattern: X = I = de N, A-poss Y = II = de N, A-poss 5. (Quasi-)synonyms: {QSyn} assassinat, homicide#1; crime 6. Semantic derivations and collocations: {V0} tuer {A0} meurtrier-adj {S1} auteur [de ART _] //meurtrier-n /*Nom pour X*/ 7. Examples: La mésentente pourrait être le mobile du meurtre.

General View of the Database

The lexical database is built on the one hand by integrating existing resources and on the other hand by writing and correcting new entries.

Once the database is homogeneous, users will be able to extract their own customized dictionaries dynamically from the database and to interact with them.

Internal Architecture of the Database

The database will be built using a pivot architecture based on Dr. G. Sérasset's Ph.D. thesis [START_REF] Sérasset | Interlingual Lexical Organisation for Multilingual Lexical Databases in NADIA[END_REF] and experimented by Dr. E. Blanc in PARAX [START_REF] Blanc | PARAX-UNL: A large scale hypertextual multilingual lexical database[END_REF]. The monolingual dictionaries will be linked only through a pivot dictionary of interlingual links called acceptions. These acceptions will also be linked together by refinement links. They may also be translated into the UNL language [START_REF]Universal Networking Language[END_REF], [b6].

Each sense or meaning of each entry of a monolingual dictionary is linked to one or more acceptions of the pivot dictionary. For example, in French " carte " has two meanings: " carte à Interaction with the Dictionaries

Extraction of Dictionaries Integration of existing resources

Finally, it should be stressed that such an endeavor will not only need the dedication of as many volunteer contributors as possible, but some stable support, in the form of a server and, more difficult, of a central team of experts charged of "refining the raw ore" of individual contributions.

That team does not have to be in a single place, but convenient groupware tools should be developed for it.