Re: [ontolex] Lexicography Module Specification complete and ready for review

Dear Julia and Jorge,

Thank you for your hard work! I only now got to reading through the
document.
It very much reflects our conclusions, and it makes for a very readable and
cohesive whole.
Much like Fahad, I mostly came up with typos or odd phrasings. You'll find
these below.

I'm no longer sure, however, what the actual use is of the subComponent
relation.
Its description suggests it is completely redundant, and therefore doesn't
seem to follow the "rule of thumb" mentioned at the start of the
documentation?

I also wonder whether it would be good to divide the terminology over two
main sections: "lexicographic" and "lexicon".
This would follow the approach in Figure 1 and would more clearly separate
the two uses/contexts.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter!

Kind regards,
Sander

P.S. I would still very much like to add a 'usage guide' (as you suggested
earlier, Julia) with examples from lexicographic resources.

-------

associated to -> associated with / related to
comes as a logical step -> is a logical next step
allow to build -> allow for building / allow us to build   (similar
patterns elsewhere)
keep trace -> keep track / trace  (occurs multiple times)
tranlsations -> translations

EXAMPLE 1 seems to have a redundant extra space preceding the LexicalEntry
statements?

in a specific ordered and/or a hierarchy. -> in a specific order and/or
hierarchy

EXAMPLE 2 uses ';' with rdfs:member even though ',' could be used
          (which would be more in line with previous examples).

EXAMPLE 3 goes slightly amiss with spaces and lack of '.' in the final
statements.
          Additionally, perhaps it makes for an easier read to do something
like the following:
          :animal_n_comp
              rdf:_1 :animal_n_sense_1_comp ;
              rdf:_2 :animal_n_sense_2_comp .
          (i.e. leave any non-rdf:type statements below the subject rather
than behind it)

subComponent SubClassOf: rdfs:member   ->  SubPropertyOf



On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 17:58, Fahad Khan <anasfkhan81@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Julia/Jorge,
>
> Thanks for all of your hard work over the last few months. I've left some
> comments below, pretty much just pointing out some minor typos that I've
> found.
> Cheers,
> Fahad
>
>
> Section 1.1 2nd Paragraph
>
> ...used in the context of the work in...
> -> ...used in the context of work in...
>
> 3rd Paragraph
> Being interoperability...
> -> Interoperability being
>
> the nature of the lemon model being descriptive but not prescriptive,
> which facili neutrality towards different lexicographic views
> ->
> the nature of the lemon model being descriptive but not prescriptive,
> which facilitates neutrality towards different lexicographic views
>
> Note
> duplicities -> duplicates
>
> Section 2
>
> Choose a better name for the Figure 1 caption :)
> Section 2.1
> but complement, -> but complements
>
> Section 2.3
> In the diagram + examples we should add a describes property between
> Lexicon and LexicographicResource (otherwise there is no link between them)
> -- although this would mean changing the domain of describes.
>
> inverse property for entry?
>
> Section 2.4
> Not comfortable with the dictionary's language being specified two
> different times... why would the lexicographic resource have different
> associated languages from the lexicon?
>
> Section 2.5
> Example
> "en&"?
> Note
> arrengement -> arrangement
>
> Section 2.7
> 2nd paragraph
> glassses ->glasses
>
>>

-- 
Sander Stolk, MSc MA