, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 105–131 | Cite as

Frame-based terminology applied to military science: transforming a glossary into a knowledge resource

  • Pamela Faber
  • Pilar León-AraúzEmail author
Original Paper


This paper describes a Frame-Based Terminology approach to the military terminology of the Spanish Armed Forces. The alphabetically organized (PD0-000) glossary of military terms of the Spanish Armed Forces was transformed into MiliMarco [MiliFrame], a bilingual terminological knowledge base in which each concept appears within a hierarchy of conceptual categories and a semantic network. Frame-based resources enhance access to domain knowledge in a contextualized way, since embedding concepts in a knowledge structure activates associative information in semantic memory and promotes context availability. The design and population of MiliMarco involved the analysis and transformation of the content in the glossary entries as well as the extraction of new information. For this purpose, specialized knowledge structures were elaborated from the definitions in the glossary and from the lexicalization of semantic relations in the corpus. New concepts were added to fill the gaps in the glossary and additional data categories were included, such as images, collocations, and contexts. Previous work on military ontologies, usually in the form of controlled, structured vocabularies, is limited to a specific domain (e.g., military intelligence). MiliMarco has the advantage of providing an expanded view of the military domain in the form of conceptual networks combined with linguistic contexts that go far beyond simple hierarchies. Although still an ongoing project, the resulting knowledge base is currently a concept-oriented resource where users can browse through the conceptual hierarchy and semantic networks based on their cognitive and communicative needs.


Terminology knowledge base Military science Frame-based terminology Corpus linguistics 



This research was carried out as part of the projects FFI2017-89127-P, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness; and PIN 5/18, funded by the CEMIX UGR-MADOC.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. Bowman, Michael, Antonio López Jr., and Gheorghe Tecuci. 2001. Ontology development for military applications. In Proceedings of the Southeastern Regional ACM Conference, Atlanta, GA, March 16–17.Google Scholar
  2. Cerrella Bauer, S. 2015. Managing terminology projects: concepts, tools and methods. In Handbook of terminology, ed. H.J. Kockaert and F. Steurs, 324–340. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cabezas-García, Melania, and Pamela Faber. 2018. Phraseology in specialized resources: an approach to complex nominals. Lexicography 5 (1): 55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Stevenson, A. (ed.). 2011. Concise Oxford english dictionary, 12th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dobrina, Claudia. 2015. Getting to the Core of a Terminological Project. In Handbook of terminology, ed. H.J. Kockaert and F. Steurs, 180–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green. 2007. Cognitive linguistics: an introduction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Faber, Pamela (ed.). 2012. A cognitive linguistics view of terminology and specialized language. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  8. Faber, Pamela. 2015. Frames as a framework for terminology. In Handbook of terminology, ed. H.J. Kockaert and F. Steurs, 14–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fernández-Domínguez, Jesús. 2016. A morphosemantic investigation of term formation processes in english and spanish. Lang Contrast 16 (1): 54–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jones, Ian. 2011. The NATO terminology programme and NATOTerm. In Proceedings of the 33rd Translating and the Computer Conference, London.
  11. Jones, Ian, and Louise Askew. 2014. Meeting the language challenges of NATO operations: policy, practice and professionalization. London: Palgrave McMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. León-Araúz, Pilar, and Antonio San Martín. 2018. The EcoLexicon semantic sketch grammar: from knowledge patterns to word sketches. In Proceedings of the LREC 2018 workshop “Globalex 2018 – Lexicography and WordNets”, ed. I. Kerneman, and S. Krek, 94–99. Globalex: Miyazaki.Google Scholar
  13. León-Araúz, Pilar, Antonio San Martín, and Pamela Faber. 2016. Pattern-based word sketches for the extraction of semantic relations. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Computational Terminology (Computerm 2016), Osaka, Japan, pp. 73–82.Google Scholar
  14. Marshman, Elizabeth. 2002. The cause-effect relation in a biopharmaceutical corpus: English knowledge patterns. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Terminology and Knowledge Engineering, Nancy, France, pp 89–94.Google Scholar
  15. Meyer, Ingrid. 2001. Extracting knowledge-rich contexts for terminography: a conceptual and methodological framework. In Recent advances in computational terminology, ed. D. Bourigault, C. Jacquemin, and M.C. L’Homme, 279–302. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). 2011. Linguistic Support for Operations, ALING P-1.
  17. Nguyen, Duc N., Joseph B. Kopena, Thau Loo Boon, and William C. Regli. 2010. Ontologies for distributed command and control messaging. In Proceedings of the 2010 conference on formal ontology in information systems: proceedings of the sixth international conference (FOIS 2010), ed. A. Galton and R. Mizoguchi, 373–384. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  18. Rey, Alan (ed.). 2019. Le Petit Robert de la Langue Française. Paris: Le Robert.Google Scholar
  19. Sager, Juan C., David Dungworth, and Peter F. McDonald. 1980. English Special Languages. Principles and Practice in Science and Technology. Wiesbaden, Germany: Oscar Brandstetter Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Štekauer, Pavol, Salvador Valera, and Lívia Körtvélyessy. 2012. Word-formation in the World’s Languages: a Typological Survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Steurs, Frieda, Ken De Wachter, and Evy De Malsche. 2015. Terminology Tools. In Handbook of terminology, ed. H.J. Kockaert and F. Steurs, 222–249. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tolk, Andreas, and Barry Smith. 2011. Command and Control Ontology. International Journal of Intelligent Defence Support Systems 4: 209.Google Scholar
  23. Valente, Andre, Douglas Holmes, and Frank C. Alvidrez. 2005. Using a military information ontology to build semantic architecture models for airspace systems. IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings. Scholar
  24. Yoo, Donghee, Sungchun No, and Minyoung Ra. 2014. A practical military ontology construction for the intelligent army tactical command information system. International Journal of Computers, Communications and Control 9 (1): 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Translation and InterpretingUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations