OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

lexidma message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

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

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

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?

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

Question 3: What's a 'Reference'? (From the diagram, it's something a Sense has, and it has a Definition).

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

Question 5: 'Usage' probably means labels such as "archaic", "vulgar", "such-and-such dialect" and so on, right?

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)?

Question 6: What do the background colours of some of the boxes mean? The green, blue and purple (if that's what it is).

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.

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.


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).


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]