W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ontolex@w3.org > November 2013

Re: Variation and Translation Modules

From: Elena Montiel Ponsoda <elemontiel@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 13:20:00 +0100
Message-ID: <527CD6F0.30504@gmail.com>
To: public-ontolex@w3.org, "QUATTRI, Francesca [11901993r]" <francesca.quattri@connect.polyu.hk>
Dear Francesca,

Sorry for the late reply and thanks a lot for your comments.

I will try to address them here.

Regarding the distinction between variation and translation, as 
discussed in the last telco, I see 2 options.

1.To consider translation as a form of cross-lingual variation. This 
would suppose the explosion of term variants, since we would probably 
need one cross-lingual variant per type of variant identified (eg. 
Cross-lingual diatopic, diaphasic, dimensional, etc.).

2.To consider variants as language neutral alternative forms in the 
denomination of the same concept (synonyms), and, in a parallel fashion, 
to have the translation relation. For example, surrogate mother as a 
dimensional variant of mère porteuse, and also as a translation.

As for intralingual variation, I would say this would fall into the 
category of terminological variation as well.

Regarding your second comment on the "simplistic elegance" of the model, 
I am not sure I understand it. We have identified two different ways for 
representing lexical vs. terminological variants. I think we could 
propose these representation options to users, although at the end of 
the day, they will be the ones to decide if they want to follow these 
recommendations or go for a different representation. However, I think 
that if a user is really interested in representing variants or 
translations (because they are captured in a resource he has), he will 
need such a complexity.

As for the particular types of variants, I think we need to discuss if 
these are going to be represented within the module, or if we keep them 
in a separated repository the module can point to.

I am not sure I answer your question. We can further discuss this during 
the telco later today.

For the time being, we leave context as open as possible. Moreover, we 
consider context as a property that can have several values 
(multi-valuated property), so that users can extend this. You are right 
that we should propose some examples of what we understand by context as 
reference. I can think of "domain", "register"...

To be continued... ;)

Elena





El 26/10/2013 11:59, QUATTRI, Francesca [11901993r] escribió:
> Hi,
>
> thank you for yesterday's interesting Telco.
>
> To Elena and Jorge: Sorry for coming back to your pdf now. Following 
> yesterday's discussion I think the proposal is really cool.
>
> There are some open questions and I wonder whether you can help in this:
>
> - The distinction between "variation" and "translation" remains a bit 
> vague to me. From the examples provided, I guess you use "variation" 
> in terms of lexical and semantic changes within the same language, and 
> not with reference to other changes (intralingual- or interlingual 
> variation). Is it correct?
>
> - The way you suggest to go through lexical and terminological 
> variants is extremely interesting, yet as mentioned complex. We often 
> reiterated the concept of "simplistic elegance" of the model. How to 
> decide which variants are the ones worth to be included?
>
> - The third and last questions catches up with the latter. "Context" 
> in the Translation Module is still to be discussed. Users would be 
> grateful I think if we could introduce at least a context for 
> reference, but again we should be able to choose one among many, and 
> possibly be able to motivate the choice.
>
> It might all depend on the final use and the final users of the SKOS 
> model, on whether they are interested in a multilingual approach 
> (there might be some), as well as on the complexity of the semantic 
> layers, incl. registers, and the other cited variants.
>
> If it works, this extension is as interesting and useful as complex 
> and long-lasting, so I guess it is worth spending some thinking on the 
> issue.
>
> Thank you for kicking the ball in the first place.
>
> Regards,
>
> F.
>
>        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
> /Disclaimer:/
>
> /This message (including any attachments) contains confidential 
> information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are 
> not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and notify 
> the sender and The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (the University) 
> immediately. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, 
> or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited and 
> may be unlawful./
>
> /The University specifically denies any responsibility for the 
> accuracy or quality of information obtained through University E-mail 
> Facilities. Any views and opinions expressed are only those of the 
> author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the University and 
> the University accepts no liability whatsoever for any losses or 
> damages incurred or caused to any party as a result of the use of such 
> information./
>


-- 
Elena Montiel-Ponsoda
Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
Facultad de Informática
Campus de Montegancedo s/n
Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, España
www.oeg-upm.net
Tel. (+34) 91 336 36 70
Fax  (+34) 91 352 48 19
Received on Friday, 8 November 2013 12:20:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:36:36 UTC