Bwana Net and Cluvi (possible improvements and comparison)
When we were asked to do a final project for this subject, we started to think about doing something related to the translation corpus. When we were told that translation could not be done, we decided to compare two different corpus: CLUVI and Bwana Net. An article in this blog about CLUVI is already done, so now I will try to introduce Bwana Net to the readers and then make a final analysis on how they can be improved and a brief comparison of them two.
What is Bwana Net?
BwanaNet is an interface developed at the IULA that allows to query the Technical Corpus(CT) of the Institut via Internet. The CT is indexed using the Corpus Workbench, a set of tools developed at the Institut für Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung of the Stuttgart University.
With BwanaNet people can consult the CT-IULA documents. These are the steps to follow:
1. Select the language document.
2. Select if you want to do a monolingual or a multilingual consult.
3. Select the documents
4. Define the kind of consult
5. Define the consult
6. Visualize the results
One of the good points of this site is that you can choose the domain and the sub domains, in order to have a more specific and close search.
The problem with this corpus, and one of the main differences between this and Cluvi is that one you search what you have chosen the results are quite different.
How can they be improved?
Analysing the side and at the first sight we have realised that the Bwananet side first page hasn’t got clear instructions for the searching. We have a brief description in the main page of what is it based on and the history of the creation.It offers a link to the IULA that describes the project of the corpus while at the first sight of the CLUVI site we can see a more clear presentation of what they offer and a description of all the kind of translations that the user can try.
Bwananet offers the possibility of visiting its page through three languages : English, Spanish and Catalán. CLUVI offers only two: Galego and English; both Corpus offer very few resources in what is referred to language a very few amount of people are able to use it because of the language.Both of them offer a description of the project and the searches you can do and find. CLUVI has got a better and clear description of the information and the way to use it.
CLUVI offers a clear and listed description of all the different languages and translations that can be used while the Bwananet site does not make a very deep description of the possibilities that offers.
Both CLUVI and Bwana Net offer good results; they offer different languages, different kinds of texts (original, translated, legal, literary, etc.). While CLUVI is easier, Bwana Net is more specific.
A brief comparison:
At the end of the researching what we find is that both sites are quite different one from the other. Let’s see some common aspects:
- They both offer multilingual searching.
- They both offer specific research in very specific areas and contexts.
Let’s see now some differences:
- Bwana Net requires more time and a more specific knowledge and searching.
- Cluvi offers more information about the context and the place the information is taken from.
- Bwana Net is much more specific than Cluvi. They offer a closer research and more options than Cluvi.
Bibliography:
Our Group’s Project
Bwana Net
CLUVI
