My
comments
below .
Best
Iztok
From
:
[mailto:] On Behalf
Of
Michal MÄchura
Sent
:
Tuesday , June 1, 2021 3:37 PM
To:
Subject
: Re: [ lexidma ] Module- by -module proposal
2/ I am not sure about
allowing
PartOfSpeech , Pronunciation
and
InflectedForm as children
of
Sense . Having
senses
of
an
entry
with
different part- of - speech
values is something
that some models
explicitly
avoid , we
would
also
need to figure out how this
inherits
from
the
Entry's
PartOfSpeech . I don't
think
we
should
have
Pronunciation
and
InflectedForm at all , as senses
with
different
pronunciations
or
inflections are homographs
and
we
really
should
insist
that
homographs are distinct at the
Entry
level .
I am not sure of it either , it does
smell
of
bad
practice : sloppy
separation
between form and
function . We
could go the
radical
route
and
prohibit it altogether . On the
other
hand it is what
lexicographers
sometimes
want to do. This
always
makes me think
of
the
Czech
word " jeÅÃb " ' crane
which
has
two
different
plurals
depending on whether
it's
the
animal
or
the
machine : I don't
think
lexicographers
would
welcome
the
idea
of
having to create
two separate entries
for
these . This is not an
exception , I could
probably
dig out other
examples
from
oher
languages . So the
question is: do we
want to force
lexicographers to re- analyze
all
sense-specific
morphosyntax as homonmy ?
I would
say so... but
what do others
think
here ?
If
we go that
way , then
we
wlll
have a data model which
makes
dictionaries more easily
machine-understandable ( because
of
the
clear
separation
between form and
meaning ) but
less human- friendly .
As an alternative proposal , how about
if
we
do
have
all
morphosyntax at the
entry-level (as you
wish ) but , in addition , we
invent some relational
mechanism
for
expressing
the
fact
that some of
the morphosyntactic properties ( such as this plural or
that
pronunciation ) only
apply to some senses
and not to others . Or
would
that make the data model even
less
machine-understandable
instead
of more?
[IK]
I would
agree
with John, we
should separate such
entries
with
different
pronunciations , plurals
etc . In general, I think
the model will " force " some lexicographers
into
many
things
they
might not be used too , and it is better to stay
consistent
with
what
we
think is best
practice .
J
3/ There
seems to be no way to record
properties
of
entries
such as noun
gender in the model.
That's
what
the
Label
object
type
would be for , in my
proposal .
4/ Pronunciation
probably
needs a scheme
and a variety
property . See
this
recent
paper (Sec 3.3) for a discussion
of
this : https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2021.gwc-1.11.pdf
For
scheme , probably , yes . For
variety , if
by
that
you
mean
things like ' British ' versus ' American ', I enviaged
that , again , the
Label
object
type
would do that .
Okay ... so label is very
overloaded in terms
of
what it represents . My
feeling is I would
prefer some more specific
categories
for
common
annotations .
On second
thought , I agree
with
you : we
should
have
specific
types
for
specific
kinds
of
annotations , instead
of a catch-all
Label
type .
Why
am I changing
my
mind ? Because it makes
sense
that
all
corners
of
the data model should be on the same level
between
specific
and
abstract . If
we
have
Entry , Sense
and
SenseGroup
instead
of
just one abstract "Segment" type (as I was
proposing
earlier ), then
by
the same token
we
should
have ( for
example ) Register, Region
and Time instead
of
just one abstract
Label . The Segment and
Label
types are valid
abstraction
and
belong in a meta-model, but not belong in DMLex
because
DMLex
wants to be less "meta" and more immediately
implementable .
Also , I wasn't
even
consistent
with
myself
because
PartOfSpeech is really
just a Label
too .
[IK]
Perhaps
we
should be clear
what a label is
to me, it is an
indication
of some sort of
restriction
of
the
sense . Part of
speech
does not fall
under
this
category as it is the
key
distinguishing
info
separating
entries . Relatedly , I also
agree
we
should not have part of
speech , pronunciation
and
inflected form as children
of
Sense .
M.
