[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [lexidma] Module-by-module proposal
My comments below. Best Iztok From: lexidma@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:lexidma@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Michal MÄchura
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
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 â 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. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]