Evaluation System for Online Terminological Databases

2 4 Dóra Mária Tamás Evaluation System for Online Terminological Databases Eszter Sermann doi.org/10.35321/term26-02 Evaluation System for Online Terminological Databases DÓRA MÁRIA TAMÁS Hungarian Office for Translation and Attestation Ltd., Termik Terminology Research Group at Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church of Hungary ESZTER SERMANN University of Szeged, Termik Terminology Research Group at Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church of Hungary AbSTrAcT This paper attempts to create an extensive classification and evaluation system to offer objective viewpoints for the comprehension, description, classification, evaluation and review of central online termbases of larger organisations. Such a comprehensive classification already exists for lexicographical genres, i.e. printed and online dictionaries, but it is still missing for online termbases. The research is based on previous international and Hungarian literature, the study of several online examples, of existing partial classifications and our previous research. The experimental categorisation with a schematic version in the appendix offers a contribution to a deeper comprehension, the possibility of a thorough description and more attentive evaluation, and ultimately, a growing awareness of the use of online termbases. Providing a new insight may also inspire the development of these beneficial tools which facilitate communication in the field of specialised languages. Keywords: translation tools, terminological database, evaluation system, concept orientation, data categories. AnOTAcijA Straipsnyje siekiama pateikti visapusišką klasifikavimo ir vertinimo sistemą, kuri būtų objektyvus pagrindas siekiant suprasti, aprašyti, klasifikuoti, vertinti ir peržiūrėti svarbiausias didesnių organizacijų internetines terminų bazes. Tokios visapusiškos leksikografinių žanrų, t. y. spausdintų ir internetinių žodynų, klasi- 2 5Terminologija | 2019 | 26 fikacijos jau esama, tačiau internetinėms terminų bazėms taikomos klasifikacijos nėra. Tyrimas grindžiamas Vengrijoje ir kitose šalyse paskelbta literatūra, kelių internetinių pavyzdžių ir dalinės klasifikacijos analize, autorių atliktais tyrimais. Bandomasis skirstymas į kategorijas taikant straipsnio priede pateikiamą schemą leidžia geriau suvokti, išsamiau aprašyti ir atidžiau įvertinti naudojimosi internetinėmis terminų bazėmis ypatumus, pagaliau – suvokti naudojimosi tokiomis bazėmis svarbą. Naujos įžvalgos gali paskatinti šias bendravimą specializuotų kalbų srityje lengvinančias priemones tobulinti. esminiai žodžiai: vertimo priemonės, terminų bazė, vertinimo sistema, orientavimasis į sąvoką, duomenų kategorijos. inTrODUcTiOn Today online termbases have become effective and almost indispensable tools for accurate professional communication and term usage. The termbase is a genre belonging to terminology as an applied linguistics discipline, and has unique features regarding its structure and content. “Terminologyˮ is used in three senses (theory, methodology and collection of terms), its central category is the concept, and therefore it has a concept-oriented approach (Bessé et al. 1997; Fóris 2005). This can be seen in all three areas of terminology: in theoretical research, in methods used to analyse terms for conceptual comparisons, and organising data and terms in termbases (Tamás 2018). Although termbases have some common features, they have been created for different purposes (e.g. language policy, company purposes, or as part of the work of international organisations), they contain concepts of different subject fields (e.g. legal, economic, medical etc.) and at different levels of detail, so it is easy to see that they present many differences. This is why it is not simple to create a generally accepted evaluation system that covers all aspects. After surveying the relevant literature, this paper aims to offer a tentative system for examining and evaluating large online central databases according to relatively objective and comprehensive criteria. The evaluation criteria developed for printed and electronic dictionaries (Fóris, Rihmer 2007; Gaál 2012) formed the basis of our evaluation system. Dictionaries have a different approach as for principles of compilation and user interface, therefore new criteria or criteria filled with new content are necessary for studying and evaluating termbases. 2 6 Dóra Mária Tamás Evaluation System for Online Terminological Databases Eszter Sermann 1. LITERATURE REVIEW in our previous studies we have created a definition of terminology databases, which proposed that a termbase is a collection of electronically stored terminology data, created from an onomasiological approach, based on mapping the conceptual system of the subject field. it contains terms and their definitions of one or several subject fields in one or more languages (Sermann, Tamás 2010: 113). As we observed, in the relevant international literature the terms terminological databank and database are often used as synonyms (e.g. Hartmann, James 1998), however in various studies databank is considered as a wider concept that includes databases (e.g. Cabré 1998; Sager 1990). Based on ISO’s definition, it is a “database containing terminological data collection” (https://ttbs.isolutions.iso.org/obp/ui#:term:3.29). We have compared the characteristics of termbases and those of electronic dictionaries (Sermann, Tamás 2010) and have concluded that electronic dictionaries and termbases have some identical features and also some differences, the latter being summarised in Table 1. Table 1. Table summarising the features of online electronic dictionaries and termbases (Tamás 2014: 139; based on Sermann, Tamás 2013) OnlinE ElEcTrOnic DicTiOnAry TErMbASE semasiological principles onomasiological principles central element: the word or linguistic sign central element: the concept which is designated by the term and expressed in the definition lists meanings renders data to the concept (the definition) extra information: e.g.: pronunciation (speaker icon), example sentences taken from the context dictionary, conjugation of verbs extra information: information on the level of equivalence (full, partial or lack of equivalence), and on the equivalent provided (term, functional equivalent, term candidate, standardised, harmonised, recommended etc.) The evaluation criteria for printed dictionaries (Fóris, Rihmer 2007; Fóris 2018) cover background information on the dictionary, information 2 7Terminologija | 2019 | 26 on the content (mega-, macro-, microand mesostructure), content elements (lexicological basics and linguistic information), and data of dictionary usage. The megastructure of a dictionary refers to the presence or lack or quality of the front matter (foreword, contents, instruction) and the sources used; the macrostructure is the organisation of lexical entries (e.g. alphabetical or thematic); the microstructure is the inside structure of lexical entries; and the mesostructure is the system of crossreferences. The evaluation criteria for electronic dictionaries (Gaál 2012) contain elements to match the features of the reference tool, and these include the technical parameters of the dictionary, its embeddedness, the features of the search engine and the displaying of results. Table 2. main evaluation criteria for printed and electronic dictionaries (Fóris, Rihmer 2007; Fóris 2018; Gaál 2012) PrinTED DicTiOnAriES (FóRIS, RIHmER 2007; FóRIS 2018) ElEcTrOnic DicTiOnAriES (GAáL 2012) background information background information Structural information on the content: mega-, macro-, microand mesostructure Structural information on content: mega-, macro-, microand mesostructure, novelties: technical parameters, embeddedness, price, features of the search engine and results. information on the content: phonology, grammar and semantics information on the content: phonology, grammar and semantics, novelties: audio files Data on dictionary use: usability, access, innovative features and wider social value Data on dictionary use: usability, access, innovative features and wider value – novelties: user friendliness, updates and reliability Some papers (Tamás 2010, 2014; Sermann 2011; Novák 2018) described specific termbases, others created various classifications and evaluation systems (Sager 1990; Arntz et al. 2014; Tamás 2014; Schmitz, Drewer 2017), but these are not suitable for comprehensive analysis in education, the training of translators or writing reviews. in this paper we use the following classification system for databases (see Table 3): 2 8 Dóra Mária Tamás Evaluation System for Online Terminological Databases Eszter Sermann Table 3. a tentative classification of termbases (based on Tamás 2014: 111) TypE OF TErMbASE cOncEPT OriEnTED TErM AUTOnOMy nUMbEr OF DATA FIELDS SiMPlE necessarily applicable (or with some hybrid features) not necessarily applicable (resemblings to a word list) their number does not reach the minimum (e.g. only term and subject field) TrADiTiOnAl necessarily applicable applicable traditional number of data fields present, a definition in at least one language cOMPlEX (sometimes called knowledge base or terminology information system necessarily applicable applicable traditional number of data fields present, and further pieces of knowledge (concept maps, corpora) According to the above classification e.g. the Termin (https://jogi-terminologia.im.gov.hu/), the termbase of the Ministry of justice of Hungary, belongs to the category of simple termbases. it has entries in four languages (Hungarian, English, French, German), in a simple, table format. it contains information on the domain and subdomain, with occasional explanations added recently (including: source, definition, example sentences), but does not feature any other data field, and the entry does not mark a main term (which would be important for term autonomy) only showing one version. In its present form, the UNTERm (United nations Multilingual Terminology Database, http://untermportal.un.org), also belongs to this category. This interinstitutional database was made public in 2014, and only offers a limited amount of information on terms. EUrOTErMbAnK, a database created on an EU initiative to facilitate the accession of new member states from 2004, also had just a few data categories (e.g. term type, grammatical part of speech, collection, domain, editors) (https://www.eurotermbank.com/) and in its new version contains collections of different domains. Another simple database is Euskalterm, created by the Basque Centre for Terminology and Lexicography (UZEI) (http://www.euskadi.eus/euskalterm/). The Centre merged their previously published terminological dictionaries to create the database in 1987, and in 2001 declared it to be the basque national termbase. its structure 2 9Terminologija | 2019 | 26 resembles a word list, some data sheets lack a definition, but all of them show a domain, the source of terminology data and the year of recording the data (for details see Sermann 2013). The existence of these termbases is often gap-filling, of vital importance and great value, especially for minor languages. The traditional type of termbases include the bistro (Novák 2013; Tamás 2013), which is a terminology database initiated by bolzano, an autonomous county, and maintained by the EURAC Research Centre (http:// www.eurac.edu/en/research/autonomies/commul/Pages/default.aspx). The database contains legal and public administration terms in Italian, German and Ladin (http://bistrosearch.eurac.edu/). The entries are detailed, contain several data categories, provide a definition in at least one language, and the results of a search are shown in such a way that concepts are displayed separately. One of the oldest databases is the Swiss Termdat (www.termdat.ch), which was established in 1987 and has similar features (Novák, Tamás 2013). The termbase of the EU, IATE (https://iate.europa. eu/home) also belongs to this category, but in this database definitions can be substituted by contexts. The Serbian database promoting Serbia’s accession to the EU, Evronim (http://prevodjenje.mei.gov.rs/evronim/ index.php?jezik=engl) also has mostly features of a traditional termbase. The SApTerm (www.sapterm.com) has a user interface that shows some new features too, and also belongs here (see Tamás 2015) (http://www. eurac.edu/). cercaterm, the termbase of the catalan centre for terminology (TERmCAT) can also be regarded as a traditional terminology database (https://www.termcat.cat/ca/cercaterm). its main language is catalan, and it shows equivalents in Spanish, French, English and Italian. Entries contain the definition of the concept, a term in catalan, its grammatical category and some other language equivalents. complex termbases entail concept maps and corpora as well. One example is the Eohsterm knowledge base (www.eohsterm.org) (Tamás 2010), which contains a concept map and the aligned texts of the analysed laws as well, but has not been updated since its creation. WIpO pearl (https:// www.wipo.int), the termbase of the UN World Intellectual property Organisation, is an excellent example of using a concept map. it contains data in ten languages, and terms can be searched using the linguistic search or the concept map search. in addition, in case of a not yet worked out term, one can find the results of machine translation with indication. 3 0 Dóra Mária Tamás Evaluation System for Online Terminological Databases Eszter Sermann We have tried to analyse a wide range of termbases, altogether 17 termbases, though it could be completed by tools available in certain areas, like Russia or Asia (for instance China). it is important to bear in mind that this evaluation system concerns the user interfaces of large central online databases, and does not entail the study of termbanks created by terminologists vs. translators, the individual file or even the server based termbases, a description of the steps to create these, the analysis thereof and the description of complex terminology management systems (Arntz et al. 2014; Bowker 2015: 307; Drewer et al. 2014; Schmitz, Drewer 2017). The above mentioned publications took the needs of everyday use as their starting point and did not generalise their evaluation criteria for more general research purposes. 2. EVALUATION SySTEm FOR ONLINE TERmINOLOGICAL DATABASES 2.1. Background information on central termbases The study of the general background to a database may start out from a review of the termbases of the given domain. Previous versions may reveal the historical background of the termbase, and if it has a predecessor (for example as in the case of EURODICAUTOm and its successor IATE). This can be studied from various aspects. For example, Sager (1990: 165–167) looks at technological advancement and distinguishes first generation termbases (word oriented, designed for internal use, from the 1970’s) and second generation termbases (that appeared in the 1980’s, when the technological development enabled concept orientation and term autonomy to take place). Another criterion would be if the termbase has a connection with other termbases: due to institutional background, data could be transferred within the organisation, there could be sub-centres (see the inter-institutional database of the EU, the IATE; Termdat, UNTERm). A further criterion of the study of the general background could be the classification of the database based on subfields of terminology (language policy, translation and standardisation). in some cases the database is created under governmental supervision to fulfil the purposes of language policy (such as bistro, Termdat, Termium plus, TermCat). In other cases 3 1Terminologija | 2019 | 26 the aim is the creation of an effective translation tool (e.g. IATE), or the terms created during the standardisation process are made public in the termbase (e.g. DINTerm; https://www.din.de). Often, databases are multi-purpose and they serve various functions at the same time. When describing the immediate background to the termbase, we may scrutinise the features of the organisation that produced the database: its type, background, national or international scope, domains and available funding. One criterion could be whether the organisation that created the database is one of the typical groups that usually create termbases (Tamás 2019a: 267): – international organisations (UN – UNTERm, UN WIpO – Wipo pearl, EU – IATE, Eurotermbank); – public administrative bodies (Federal Chancellery of Switzerland – Term dat, Hungarian ministry of Justice – Termin); – research institutes and universities (EURAC Research – bistro); – translation agencies (the Canadian Translation Bureau – Termium plus). The next step could be to study the target audience of the database (native speakers, speakers having a majority or minority status, translators or experts of a specific domain, e.g. engineers, lawyers, doctors etc.). Furthermore, based on the intended purpose of the database, termbases may be distinguished on the basis of their descriptive features of informative nature and prescriptiveness of normalising nature (Tamás 2019b: 110). 2.2. Technical parameters of a termbase Technical parameters include those that are accessible for viewers, i.e. the user interface, and do not include those that require knowledge about the internal structure of the database or the background to its creation, unless they are published otherwise. being familiar with the internal structure of the database, we can decide whether the termbase fulfils the hierarchical three-fold structure required by the terminological approach (entry level – language level – term level); or if it has a structure of a database network, a simple database or a relational database (Sermann, Tamás 2010). We also need the background information to determine the extent to which the full data content of the termbase is accessible, or if the data is stored in one or more data repositories, and in what way. large central online databases usually have their own bespoke way of displaying the content. However, there may be hybrid solutions, e.g. the 3 2 Dóra Mária Tamás Evaluation System for Online Terminological Databases Eszter Sermann bistro termbase of South Tyrol, where the detailed information stored in the SDl Trados Multiterm software may also be accessed behind the user interface. Starting from this year, the Verwaltungsglossar (https:// www.sprachressourcen.at/verwaltungsglossar/), created in cooperation with the University of Vienna and containing 700 terms can already be accessed in Excel, TbX and pdf format, in SDl Trados Multiterm file format and through the online Quick Term software, and, what is more, also in the form of an app. Other databases allow users to download some of their content (see Download IATE: https://iate.europa.eu/home). Databases are becoming more modern and technologically sophisticated, and may allow users to access the data using various devices, for instance a smart phone or tablet in the case of WIpO pearl (https://www.wipo.int/reference/en/ wipopearl/news/2019/news_0003.html). 2.3. Information on the content of the termbase 2.3.1. GENERAL FEATURES OF THE DATABASE For the purpose of studying the general features of termbases, we have grouped them relating to the applicability of the terminological approach and the structure of databases into two: one group for the more general, main features and one for the more detailed and specific ones. in the first group we started with analysing whether the linguistic data have been recorded in the database keeping the concept-oriented approach in mind. in some cases we might witness the semasiological approach (based on the word or linguistic sign) being mixed with the concept-oriented approach, and as a consequence term autonomy is not fully observed or lexicographical tools are added (see the word list characteristics of EUrOTErMbAnK or the additional list of dictionaries on the website of the SAPTerm or Termium Plus database for further purposes, but not constituting part of the termbase) (see also Sermann, Tamás 2013; Tamás 2015). The Termium plus termbase does not offer a separate hitlist with the indication of domains as a stepping stone, but offers a data sheet containing record 1, record 2 and so on. based on the above we can distinguish between purely onomasiological termbases and termbases that have some kinds of semasiological features as well in their make-up. 3 9Terminologija | 2019 | 26 in addition, these features are closely related to each other, and often hard to separate (such as editing principles, documentation, reliability and quality). in line with the above we have encountered two kinds of difficulties: on the one hand, the common features are less obvious than in the case of dictionaries, and on the other hand some features belong to more than one criterion. The application of the set of criteria for vocabularies has revealed the differences between the genres of these translation tools of lexicography and terminology and the main characteristics of termbases alike. Nonetheless, the analysis can’t be considered as concluded. With a further specification of evaluation criteria, a possible development of a more evident structure on online surfaces and the necessary evolution over time of termbases, it will be possible to work out a more specific description. Still, we believe that this evaluation system can be useful for obtaining a more thorough understanding and more conscious use of these tools in education, when writing reviews and for translators alike, as already revealed in the case of vocabularies. Applying this evaluation system stepby-step, the user might discover new functions of the tool. it also helps users form and share an objective expert opinion of termbases both orally and in the form of reviews. As we have emphasised at the beginning of the paper, this evaluation system is meant to be tentative. We hope that its comprehensive nature of our analysis might even inspire developers. The genre of termbases itself is closely linked to practical requirements, however it also enables creativity. reFerenCes Arntz R., picht H., mayer F. 2009: Einfuhrung in die Terminolgiearbeit, Hildesheim, Zürich, New york: Georg Olms Verlag. (6. Aufl.). Arntz R., picht H., Schmitz K.-D. 2014: Einführung in die Terminologiearbeit, Hildesheim / Zürich / New york: Georg Olms Verlag. Bessé B. de, Nkwenti-Azeh B., Sager J. C. 1997: Glossary of Terms Used in Terminology. – Terminology 4, 117–156. Bowker L. 2015: Terminology and Translation. – Handbook of Terminology. H. J. Kocker, F. Steurs (eds.), Amsterdam / philadelphia: John Benjamins publishing Company, 304–323. Cabré m. T. 1998: Terminology. Theory, Methods and Applications (Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice i), Amsterdam / Philadelphia: john benjamins. Chiocchetti E. 2019: Terminology Work in South Tyrol: New Approaches, New Termbase, New Domains. Scientific, Administrative and Educational Dimensions of Terminology. Held at: the 3rd international conference on Terminology, Lithuania, Vilnius, 17–18 October 2019. Drewer p., pulitano D., Schmitz K.-D. 2014: Terminologiearbeit. Best Practices 2.0, Köln: Deutscher Terminologie-Tag e.V. Fóris á. 2005: Hat terminológia lecke [Six lectures in terminology], pécs: Lexikográfia Kiadó. 4 0 Dóra Mária Tamás Evaluation System for Online Terminological Databases Eszter Sermann Fóris á. 2018: Lexikológiai és lexikográfiai ismeretek magyar (mint idegen nyelv) tanároknak. [Lexicology and lexicography for teachers of Hungarian (as a foreign language)]. Károli Gáspár Református Egyetem, magyarnyelv-tanári segédkönyvek, Budapest: L’Harmattan. Fóris á., Rihmer Z. 2007: A szótárak minősítési kritériumairól. [On the Evaluation Criteria for Dictionaries]. – Fordítástudomány 9(1), 109–113. Gaál p. 2012: Szempontrendszer online szótárak minősítéséhez. [Evaluation System for Online Dictionaries]. – Magyar Terminológia 5(2), 225–250. Hartmann R. K. K., James G. 1998: Dictionary of Lexicography, Exeter: routledge. Löckinger G. 2019: Fachsprachliche Nachschlagewerke für technische Redakteurinnen und Redakteure – Ergebnisse einer emprischen Studie. Edition. 15. Jahrgang, 1. Ausgabe. 5–9. magris m., musacchio m. T., Scarpa F. 2002: Manuale di terminologia. Aspetti teorici, metodologici e applicativi, Milano: Editor Hoepli. maslias R. 2014: Combine EU Terminology with Communication and Ontology Research. – Terminology and Knowledge Engineering, 2014. Jun 2014, Berlin, Germany. Available at: https://hal.archives-ouvertes. fr/hal-01005876. Novák B. 2013: A bolzanói bistro olasz–német–ladin jogi terminológiai információs rendszer bemutatása. [Bistro, the Italian-German-Ladin information system for legal terminology]. – Magyar Terminológia 6(1), 61–83. novák b., Tamás D. 2013: A svájci jogi-közigazgatási terminológiai adatbank, a TermDat. [TermDat, the Swiss Terminology Database of Law and public Administration]. – Magyar Terminológia 6(2), 207–231. Novák B. 2018: A terminológiai munkafolyamat a minőségi jogalkotásban. Magyar–olasz összehasonlító vizsgálat az alkotmányjogi terminológia területén. [The Role of Terminology Work in Quality Law Making. Hungarian–Italian Comparative Terminology at the Field of Constitutional Law]. Doctoral Thesis University of pécs, Faculty of Law. Kranebitter K., Ralli N. 2019: Piccola guida per sviluppare strumenti terminologici. Talk held at: XXiX convegno Ass. i. Term, Terminologie e vocabolari: lessici specialistici e tesauri, glossari e dizionari. Accademia della Crusca, Villa medicea di Castello, Firenze, 30–31 may 2019. Reinke U. 2012: Terminologiearbeit fur und mit Sprachtechnologie. – Terminologieprozesse und Terminologiewerkzeuge. F. mayer, K.-D. Schmitz (eds.), Akten des Symposions. Heidelberg, 19–21. April 2012, Deutscher Terminologie-Tag e.V, Köln: SDK Systemdruck Koln GmbH & Co. KG, 101–118. Sager J. C. 1990: A Practical Course in Terminology Processing, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: john benjamins Publishing company. Schmitz K.-D., Drewer p. 2017: Terminologiemanagement. Grundlagen, Methoden, Werkzeuge, berlin: Springer Vieweg Verlag. Schmitz K.-D. 2012: Using international Standards for Terminology Exchange. – Terminologija 19, 33–38. Available at: http://lki.lt/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Terminologija-19-ilovepdf-compressed.pdf [accessed 05.08.2019]. Sermann E., Tamás D. 2010: Hogyan definiálhatjuk a fordítói adatbázist? Egy olasz és egy spanyol fordítói terminológiai adatbázis vizsgálata. [How to Define the Translation Database? Study of an italian and a Spanish Translation Oriented Termbase]. – Nyelvek találkozása a fordításban. Doktori kutatások Klaudy Kinga tiszteletére. K. Károly, á. Fóris (eds.), Budapest: ELTE Eötvös Kiadó, 101–115. Sermann E. 2011: A terminológiai szabványosítás szerepe a lokalizáció folyamatában. [The Role of Terminology Standardization in Localisation]. – Fordítástudomány 13(2), 72–87. Sermann E. 2013: A terminológiai szabványosítás és a terminológiai harmonizáció fordítási vonatkozásai. [The Translational Aspects of Terminology Standardisation and Terminology Harmonisation]. Doctoral dissertation (manuscript), Budapest: ELTE. Sermann E., Tamás D. 2013: Elektronikus szótár vagy terminológiai adatbázis? [Electronic Dictionary or Termbase?]. – Társadalmi változások, nyelvi változások. A XXII. MANYE Kongresszus előadásai. Szeged 2012. április 12–14. Sz. Tóth (ed.), Budapest–Szeged: mANyE–Szegedi Egyetemi Kiadó Juhász Gyula Felsőoktatási Kiadó, 450–454. Available at: http://mek.oszk.hu/11700/11730/. Sermann E. 2019: A terminológiai munkafolyamatok és a fordítás szempontjából releváns ISO-szabványok. [ISO Standards Relevant for Terminology Work and Translation]. – A szabványosítás fordítási és terminológiai vonatkozásai. á. Fóris, A. Bölcskei (eds.), Budapest, L’Harmattan. Sermann E. 2019: Terminológiai adatbázisok mint a nyelvi korlátok áthidalásának eszközei. magyar nyelven (is) elérhető néhány terminológiai adatbázis tartalmi és szerkezeti vizsgálata. [Termbases as the means to 4 1Terminologija | 2019 | 26 Surpass Language Barriers. Content and Structural Analysis of Some Termbases (also) Available in Hungarian]. – Acta Historiae Litterarum Hungaricarum. Acta Universitatis Szegediensis 34(3), 149–169. Tamás D. 2010: La Knowledge Base EOHS Term, ossia un vocabolario Online Creativo. – Corvinus nyelvi napok, “Kreativitás és nyelv”. 2009. szeptember 23–24. G. Cs. Dávid, A. Zelényi (eds.), Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem IOK Alkalmazott Nyelvészeti Kutatóés Továbbképző Központ, Budapest: Aula, 349–355. Tamás D. 2013: Az olaszországi Bolzano autonóm megyében élő kisebbségek jogainak védelméről és a bistro terminológiai projekt létrejöttének hátteréről. [On the protection of Rights of the minority Communities Living in the Autonomous County of Bolzano, and the Bistro Terminology project]. – Magyar Terminológia 6(1), 41–60. Tamás D. m. 2014: A gazdasági szakszövegek fordításának terminológiai kérdéseiről. [The Terminological Aspects of the Translation of Economic Texts], Fordítástudományi értekezések I, Budapest: ELTE BTK Fordítóés Tolmácsképző Tanszék. Tamás D. 2015: Az SApterm terminológiai adatbázis vizsgálata. [The Study of SApterm Termbase]. – A fordítás titkos ösvényein. Doktori kutatások Klaudy Kinga tiszteletére II. K. Károly, á. Fóris (eds.), Budapest: ELTE Eötvös Kiadó, 211–230. Available at: http://www.eltereader.hu/media/2018/05/A_forditas_titkos_osvenyein_READER.pdf. Tamás D. m. 2018: miért rögzítsünk jogi szakszavakat terminológiai adatbázisokban? [Why Should We Record Legal Terms in Termbases?]. – Magyar Jogi Nyelv 2(2), 30–32. Available at: https://joginyelv.hu/ besza molo-a-jog-es-terminologia-cimu-konferenciarol/. Tamás D. m. 2019a: A IUSTerm jogi és közigazgatási terminológiai adatbázis háttérmunkálatainak tapasztalatairól. [IUSTerm Terminological Database of Law and public Administration: A Glimpse Behind the Scenes]. – Diszciplínák találkozása – nyelvi közvetítés a XXI. században. Sz. Szoták (ed.), Budapest: OFFI Zrt, 260–281. Available at: https://150.offi.hu/kiadvanyok/ diszciplinak-talalkozasa-nyelvi-kozvetites-21-szazadban. Tamás D. m. 2019b: A terminológiai adatbázisok mint a terminológia-stratégia eszközei. [Terminology Databases as Means of Terminology Strategy]. Talk held at: Terminológia-stratégiai kihívások a magyar nyelv vonatkozásában. [challenges of Terminology Strategy in the Hungarian language Area], budapest: OFFI–L’Harmattan, 105–119 (In press). soUrCes 12620: 2019 Management of Terminology Resources ‒ Data Category Specifications. 3th edition [2019.05]. 12620: 2009 Terminology and Other Language and Content Resources – Specification of Data Categories and Management of a Data Category Registry for Language Resources. 12620: 1999 Computer Applications in Terminology ‒ Data Categories. ISO 16642: 2017 Computer Applications in Terminology ‒ Terminological Markup Framework. 2nd edition [2017.11]. online soUrCes: http://www.datcatinfo.net [accessed 05.08.2019] https://ec.europa.eu/education/knowledge-centre-interpretation/events/jiamcatt-2019_en [accessed 05.08.2019] http://www.eurac.edu/en/research/autonomies/commul/Pages/default.aspx www.isocat.org [accessed 10.03.2013] https://www.termcat.cat/en/recursos/productes-multimedia/termtest-dictionary-self-assessment-test [accessed 05.08.2019] https://www.wipo.int/reference/en/wipopearl/news/2019/news_0003.html [accessed 14.03.2019] Termbases: bistro http://bistrosearch.eurac.edu/ [accessed 14.03.2019] DinTerm https://www.din.de [accessed 14.03.2019] cercaterm https://www.termcat.cat/ca/cercaterm [accessed 06.08.2019] 4 2 Dóra Mária Tamás Evaluation System for Online Terminological Databases Eszter Sermann Evronim http://prevodjenje.mei.gov.rs/evronim/index.php?jezik=engl [accessed 05.08.2019] eohsterm www.eohsterm.org [accessed 14.03.2019] EUROTERmBANK (https://www.eurotermbank.com/) [accessed 05.08.2019] EUSKALTERm (http://www.euskadi.eus/web01-apeuskal/eu/q91EusTermWar/kontsultaJSp/q91aAction.do) [accessed 05.08.2019] France Terme (http://www.culture.fr/franceterme) [accessed 05.08.2019] IATE https://iate.europa.eu; https://iate.europa.eu/home [accessed 14.03.2019] SApTerm www.sapterm.com [accessed 16.03.2019] Termdat www.termdat.ch [accessed 15.03.2019] Termium plus https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca [accessed 14.03.2019] Verwaltungsglossar https://www.sprachressourcen.at/verwaltungsglossar/ [accessed 05.08.2019] WIpO pearl https://www.wipo.int [accessed 15.03.2019] Termin https://jogi-terminologia.im.gov.hu/ [accessed 14.03.2019] UNTERm (http://untermportal.un.org) [accessed 05.08.2019] aPPendiX EVALUATION SySTEm FOR ONLINE TERmINOLOGICAL DATABASES I. Background information on central termbases A) GENERAL BACKGROUND 1. A survey of the termbases at the given domain: – historical background, date of creation, evolution, newly implemented or improved version of a former database; – diachronic (former versions) or synchronic description; – relationship with other termbases within or outside the organisation. 2. Grouping based on aim: – language policy and terminology policy aims; – translation-oriented termbase; – standardisation purposes. B) ImmEDIATE BACKGROUND 1. The characteristics of the organisation that produced the termbase: – the background to the organisation, whether it has a national or international scope, domain, funding and type of organisation: international organisation, public administrative agency, research institute, university, translation agency. 2. Target users: – native speakers, speakers having a majority or minority status; – translators; – experts of a specific domain, e.g. engineers, lawyers, doctors etc. 4 3Terminologija | 2019 | 26 3. intended purpose: – descriptiveness; – prescriptiveness. II. Technical parameters of a termbase A) THE SOFTWARE – bespoke; – hybrid; – commercially available. B) ACCESSIBILITy OF THE TERmBASE – open or restricted; – downloading of data allowed, supported platforms (e.g. smart phone, tablet). III. Information on the content of the termbase A) GENERAL FEATURES OF THE DATABASE 1. concept oriented: – purely onomasiological approach; – hybrid approach, containing semasiological elements as well. 2. Simple, traditional or complex termbases: – number of structural elements (termbase, concept map, corpus); – level of detail in entries: type and number of data categories. B) DETAILED STRUCTURE OF THE DATABASE 1. At the level corresponding to megastructure: – directions for use and other forms of help: forum, chat service for users facing difficulties; – availability of copyright; – information on the number of concepts/entries and terms; – number of languages: monolingual, bilingual, multilingual; – number of domains and sub-domains. 2. At the level corresponding to macrostructure: – search options: simple or advanced for terms, in the domain, subdomain, for word fragments; linguistic search only or concept map search as well; search in aligned corpus; links giving access to other data repositories; – display and organisation of search results (hit list or lack of); – nature of shown information (text, image, multimedia). 4 4 Dóra Mária Tamás Evaluation System for Online Terminological Databases Eszter Sermann 3. At the level corresponding to microstructure: – number of data categories and extent of elaboration; – types of data categories and its organisation: – display of data categories and clarity of entries: order and labelling of data categories; – respect for principles of terminology data modelling: beyond being concept oriented is there term autonomy, the level of realisation of a three-level hierarchical structure (entry level – index level – term level, if transparent through external descriptions), data elementarity and granularity; – mandatory and optional data fields; – data categories as per the work methods: is there a definition or not; the number of language variants of the definition; weather a definition can be replaced by a context; definition is for one concept or is there a contrastive purpose (e.g. existence of the data category of equivalence); – choice of data categories based on aims/subfield of terminology: standardisation, translation or language policy; – choice of data categories based on specific requirements of the domain (e.g. illustrations in an engineering termbase). 4. At the level corresponding to mesostructure: – cross references (links within the entries, links among entries); – external links (to other websites or repositories); – appearance of links (can be opened, accessibility, description of content). IV. Information on the usage of the termbase A) USER FRIENDLINESS OF THE DATABASE – understandability; – use of abbreviations; – visual elements; – easy to search. b) UPDATES – frequency of updates; – general state of up-to-dateness (dates of recording). C) RELIABILITy OF DATA – documentation: sources and their indication, information on reliability in each entry and its marking; date of recording for up-to- 4 5Terminologija | 2019 | 26 dateness; star, icon, text to indicate reliability for the validated state; written sources, internal or external network of experts; the use of permanent or one-off links; – editing options and reliability: organisational with internal and/or external experts, cooperation with other organisations, possibility for individual submissions, crowd-sourced and checked, results from machine translation with indication etc. D) THE INNOVATIVE NATURE OF THE DATABASE – contains extra elements: concept map, corpus; – extra information: video tutorial, e-course; – innovative display or lack thereof. E) VALUE OF THE TERmBASE FOR SOCIETy AND ITS ImpORTANCE FOR THE pROFESSION – aspects of language strategy and terminology policy; – scope and type of experts interested; – opportunities for training, e-course, workshop, or cooperation agreements (e.g. with universities). inTerneTinių Terminų bazių verTinimo sisTema Santrauka Straipsnyje siekiama pateikti visapusišką klasifikavimo ir vertinimo sistemą, kuri būtų objektyvus pagrindas siekiant suprasti, aprašyti, klasifikuoti, vertinti ir peržiūrėti svarbiausias didesnių organizacijų internetines terminų bazes. Tokios visapusiškos leksikografinių žanrų, t. y. spausdintų ir internetinių žodynų, klasifikacijos jau esama, tačiau internetinėms terminų bazėms taikomos klasifikacijos nėra. Tyrimas grindžiamas Vengrijoje ir kitose šalyse paskelbta leksikografijos ir terminologijos sričių literatūra, ISO standartais, kelių internetinių terminų bazių, dalinės klasifikacijos analize, autorių atliktais tyrimais. Terminų bazėms taikytinų kriterijų rinkinys parengtas atsižvelgiant į keturias svarbiausias kategorijas: pagrindinę informaciją, techninius parametrus, turinio informaciją ir naudojimą. Straipsnyje taip pat pateikiama schema, kurią būtų nesunku naudoti seminarų ar pamokų metu. pamažu taikydamas tokį kriterijų rinkinį, vartotojas gali įgyti vis daugiau žinių ar net atrasti naujų funkcijų. preliminarioji vertinimo sistema atskleidžia, kad taikant beveik vienodus terminologinius metodus kuriamos terminų bazės turi tam tikrų ypatumų, nes įvairių sričių vartotojų poreikiai ir keliami tikslai numato skirtingus redagavimo principus. Be to, kai kurie ypatumai yra glaudžiai susiję ir juos dažnai sunkoka atskirti (pvz.: redagavimo principai, dokumentacija, patikimumas, kokybė). 4 6 Dóra Mária Tamás Evaluation System for Online Terminological Databases Eszter Sermann Eksperimentinis skirstymas į kategorijas padeda geriau suvokti, išsamiau aprašyti ir atidžiau įvertinti naudojimosi internetinėmis terminų bazėmis ypatumus, pagaliau – suvokti, kaip svarbu kalbos specialistams tokiomis bazėmis naudotis. Tai skatintų vartotojus susidaryti apie terminų bazes objektyvią nuomonę ir ja dalytis žodžiu ar raštu, rašant apžvalginius straipsnius. Gauta 2019-09-02 Dóra Mária Tamás Hungarian Office for Translation and Attestation ltd Hungary, 1062 budapest, bajza utca 52 Termik Terminology Research Group at Károli Gáspár University of the reformed church of Hungary Hungary, 1146 Budapest, Dózsa György út 25 E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Eszter Sermann University of Szeged Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Department for italian Studies Hungary, 6722 Szeged, Egyetem u. 2 Termik Terminology Research Group at Károli Gáspár University of the reformed church of Hungary Hungary, 1146 Budapest, Dózsa György út 25 E-mail eszter.ser[email protected]