[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [lexidma] Module-by-module proposal
1/ You model the headword as an attribute, and the inflected forms as a child of an entry. This can lead to some issues as it is not possible to provide further information about the lemma form (e.g., a label) and leads to the lemma often being repeated in the entry. This is actually what LMF does so it is not unprecedented but I am not keen on it.
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.
3/ There seems to be no way to record properties of entries such as noun gender in the model.
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
5/ I don't see the logic of having the name TranslationPartOfSpeech (etc.) as distinct from PartOfSpeech (and why not SensePartOfSpeech to be consistent?)
6/ It is odd that a sense group has a part-of-speech value. What is the purpose of this?
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]