Hi Michal,
Thanks.
On 12/10/2021 10:42, Michal MÄchura
wrote:
We have no way to
represent fine-grained morphosyntactic information,
including gender of nouns and categories of inflections.
For example the annotation on this entry and its inflected
form âboiseâ
For gender (and
other properties) of nouns (and other word classes) the idea
is that implementers would conflate them with part-of-speech
labels: they would create a âmasculine nounâ part-of-speech
label, a âfeminine nounâ part-of-speech label, and so on.
For inflection
categories, for example to say that this noun belongs in
such-and-such inflectional paradigm, there my suggestion
would again be to conflate this with the part-of-speech
label, for example âfeminine noun of the second declensionâ.
Note that in DMLex,
implementers can use the Controlled Vocabularies module to
tell the world what their home-baked part-of-speech labels
map to in some external data category ontology, for example
to LexInfo.
For inflected forms,
thatâs what the InflectedForm
object type is for (but no tildas please).
Okay, I don't like all this 'conflating', it seems like a hack to me
that is not really necessary.
We cannot give
citations for sources of information, as is typical in
historical dictionaries (see image)
True. This would be
a good candidate for a module.
There is no
etymology information (as discussed in the call). See
example in Merriam-Webster:
True again, and
again itâs a candidate for a module.
Okay, I will try to make some pull requests for candidate modules.
I am not sure how
we intend to implement collocations (see example in
FoclÃir Gaeilge-BÃarla)
My idea was that
each collocation would be treated as an entry (with the
full-form collocation as its headword, for example âlÃn
boiseâ), and this entry would be connected to its âmotherâ
entry through SubentryRelation.
To my mind, this is
the only reasonable way to handle collocations if we want to
avoid embedded subentries and headword overriding (see my
report on subentrying earlier in Lexidma and also my
presentation on recursion at eLex recently).
Yeah, but as you see we often get full sentences as 'collocations'
and in many dictionaries the definitions rely significantly on
context. I think the solution above may work, but we should
certainly try it on some real dictionary data to see how practical
it is.
No modelling for
hypernym relations
I was thinking most
lexicographers would be happy enough to model hypernymy and
hyponymy through SimilarityRelation
in the Crossreferencing module. But, by all means, feel free
to propose a more detailed inventory of relation types for
this module if you want.
I think that the distinction between synonyms and hypernyms is
quite important and few dictionaries would like to conflate these.
A simple solution would be to just have a single Relation object
and use the controlled vocabulary model to define the types of
relations?
On a general note,
Iâm sure people from both inside and outside Lexidma will
have a lot of questions like these; how do I handle nound
gender in DMLex, how do I handle collocations in DMLex, and
so on. The standard itself is probably not the right place
to answer them. So, perhaps we should think about producing
some sort of a âcookbookâ to go with the standard as an
additional, less formal guide to implementing DMLex.
I agree. Examples will need to be documented somewhere.
Regards,
John
M.
