Module-by-module proposal

OK, so, what I'm hearing from John and Iztok is support for the radical option:
- parts of speech, pronunciation, inflected forms and other formal properties belong at the entry level,
- semantics and pragmatics belong at the sense level,
- and there is to be no mixing between them. Any putative occurrence of sense-specific formal properties should trigger a reanalysis as homonymy. So, there would be two entries for "jeÅÃb", for example.
The more I mull it over in my head the less I'm opposed to it. So, if there are no more opinions one way or another, I'll rewrite the proposal like that. The flip side is that it will be leaner, simpler data model.
Give me a few days for the rewrite. I want to include a few other things I've heard here, namely: replace Label with a more specific types, and rephrase "attributes" as "properties" to avoid confusion with XML attributes.
M.
Iztok < 
> schrieb am Mi., 2. Juni 2021, 13:03:
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.