circse / lt4hala Goto Github PK

In the file "Caesar_BellumCivile_LiberII.conllu", I found a surprising "benefficio" with a double-f. At "sent_id 222", you give "non proditi per illum Caesaris benefficio estis conseruati".
I went on the web http://agoraclass.fltr.ucl.ac.be/concordances/caesar_dbcII/lecture/4.htm and in [2,32] I read: "nonne proditi per illum Caesaris beneficio estis conseruati?"
It will have almost no consequences as it is in the training set. But it is supposed to be a "gold standard".

Given that one of the challenges of the Shared Task 2024 is "to understand which treebank (or combination of treebanks) is the most suitable to deal with new test data", what decision criteria are expected to guide participants in developing a model, if no training data is provided and it has only been disclosed that test data will contain "prose and poetic texts from different time periods"? This information is too generic to guide informed choices, considering that the UD Latin treebanks are quite unbalanced for genre and period and also have annotation scheme differences​ (e.g., "iobj" is mentioned in the Shared Task guidelines, but it only appears in the LLCT treebank). In the Shared Task guidelines, then, an example of the test data is given (from Caesar, De Bello Gallico, 4.1), but that same sentence is also available as training data in the PROIEL treebank (moreover, this sentence shows another issue left unspecified, i.e. tokenization, as in ne que vs neque). Without ​a better definition, ​the outcome​ of the Shared Task is going to be largely random.

When will the data be released