Re: Fwd: [lexidma] Updated diagram for OntoLex in LEXIDMA

Thanks John. I understand now that this is meant only as a
    high-level diagram without much detail.

    

    This is different from MiloÅ's ER diagram which is (more or less)
    fully explicit.

    

    M.

    

    
On 20/07/2020 11:46, John P. McCrae
      wrote:

    

    
      
      

        

          

            
Hi Michal,

            

            

              
Ar Domh 19 IÃil 2020 ag
                13:57, scrÃobh Michal Mechura <>:

              

              Hi John,

                

                Excuse me if I'm uninformed (I'm new here) but I'm not
                sure if I 

                understand correctly how to read your diagram. I do
                understand this:

                

                - The boxes are types.

                - Most of the type names are sef-explanatory to me (but
                see questions 2, 

                3, 4, 5 below).

                - When a box is inside another another box it's an
                "is-a" relation.

              
              
Yes, those are subtypesÂ

              
                - The lines between the boxes are relations between
                instances of those 

                types.

              
              
They are RDF triples, I did not include property
                namesÂ

              
                

                That much is clear and makes sense to me. But then:

                

                Question 1: Do I assume correctly that the lines are
                one-to-many "has-a" 

                relations, from one "haver" to many "havees" in the
                direction of the 

                arrow?

              
              
I didn't put in any cardinality restrictions, there
                are some obviouslyÂ

              
                

                Question 2: What's a 'Lexicographic Component'?

              
              
That is our terminology for an element that models
                the recursive structure of a dictionaryÂ

              
                

                Question 3: What's a 'Reference'? (From the diagram,
                it's something a 

                Sense has, and it has a Definition).

              
              
A reference is a language-independent reference in a
                non-lexicographic resource, such as an ontology,
                encyclopedia or knowledge graph.

              
                

                Question 4: In 'Citation (WIP)', what's "WIP"?

              
              
Work In ProgressÂ

              
                

                Question 5: 'Usage' probably means labels such as
                "archaic", "vulgar", 

                "such-and-such dialect" and so on, right?

              
              
Yes, that is what I am referringÂto.

              
                

                Question 5: 'Morphosyntactic Properties' is in the
                diagram twice (two 

                boxes). Are those two different types (and should they
                have different 

                names then) or are they one and the same type (and
                should they be just 

                one box then)?

              
              
They are the same, I just wanted to avoid some
                unnecessary arrows.Â

              
                

                Question 6: What do the background colours of some of
                the boxes mean? 

                The green, blue and purple (if that's what it is).

              
              
I was trying to make clear which elements belong to
                only the entry (blue), only the sense (purple) or either
                (green).

              
                

                Question 7 (probably my most important one): How do
                instances of the 

                types actually contain data? Is each of them just a
                single string (an 

                Example is a string, a Translation is a string etc.)? Or
                does each type 

                decompose further into something like
                attributes/properties/children 

                which are not shown in the diagram? If it's the former
                (= each instance 

                is a single string) then I'm surprised not to see more
                relations between 

                the boxes; for example, an Example should be allowed to
                have 

                Translations, a Collocation should be allowed to have
                Examples. If it's 

                the latter (= there exist attributes which are not shown
                in the diagram) 

                then I'd be curious to see them; I guess such details
                will need to be 

                made specific in the eventual standard we are going to
                produce.

              
              
The diagram is quite simplified so I skipped most of
                the details here. Some of them can have labels attached
                to them, or in some cases, there is more sophisticated
                modelling that is fully described in the specification.
                The diagram is really only meant to give a high-level
                overview of the elements we have in the model, so we can
                be clear about a minimal set of requirements for
                LEXIDMA.

              

              

              
Regards,

              
John

              
                

                These are honest fact-finding questions, by the way. I
                just want to be 

                able to read the diagram as it was intended. The other
                diagram, the ER 

                one tha MiloÅ made, I don't have any lack of clarity
                there because I 

                "speak" ER and because I was involved in the debates
                from which it 

                emerged.

                

                Thanks!

                M.

                

                On 2020-06-25 15:04, John P. McCrae wrote:

                > Hi all,

                > 

                > I created an updated diagram for the LEXIDMA work
                based on the key

                > elements of the OntoLex model that are of relevance
                to the group.

                > 

                > Some points

                > 

                > 1/ We do allow recursion but only of a single very
                specific element

                > called the "lexicographic component". This is
                mostly due to the way

                > that the lexicographic module was added on top of
                the core model

                > 2/ Most of the elements are allowed on either the
                entry or the sense

                > except for definitions, usages (which may not be
                good), collocations

                > (also maybe not quite right), and etymology.
                Language is also not

                > allowed on forms (it is assumed to be inherited
                from the entry).

                > 

                > Regards,

                > John

                

---------------------------------------------------------------------

                To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the
                OASIS TC that 

                generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs
                in OASIS at:

                https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php