Re: Issues with backwards compatibility

If we wish to address use cases involving terminology management then 
support for multiword expressions is important as these are very common 
in term bases.

Regards,
Dave

On 06/06/2014 16:44, Paul Buitelaar wrote:
> thanks for the infos John
>
> on: Monnet /lemon/ allows us to say if a lexical entry is a multi-word 
> expression, affix or word.
>
> there are strong use cases for MWEs, e.g. in the way we use lemon in 
> EuroSentiment for the definition of complex sentiment expressions such 
> as 'quite good', 'bit dirty'
>
> not sure on affixes
>
> word is obvious
>
> cheers
>
>
> Paul
>
>
> On 06/06/2014 16:25, John P. McCrae wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Due to the large number of resources using the previous Monnet /lemon
>> /vocabulary it seems natural that we should support users who wish to
>> transition to the W3C OntoLex /lemon /vocabulary. As such I was looking
>> into the conversion.
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Monnet_OntoLex_Compatibility
>>
>> There are some areas where the previous model has significant
>> differences that we should consider whether to adopt. (Of course I do
>> not assume that everything in Monnet Lemon should be transferred across
>> but we should attempt to be able to represent relevant use cases already
>> addressed by Monnet Lemon).
>>
>>  From my analysis, there are two main issues that we should still 
>> address
>>
>>   * Monnet /lemon/ has more sophisticated description of senses, in
>>     particular, mechanisms such as contexts
>>     <http://lemon-model.net/lemon-cookbook/node11.html>, conditions
>>     <http://lemon-model.net/lemon-cookbook/node30.html>, definitions,
>>     examples and incompatibility
>>     <http://lemon-model.net/lemon-cookbook/node14.html>
>>   * Monnet /lemon/ allows us to say if a lexical entry is a multi-word
>>     expression, affix or word.
>>
>> Any comments on whether we should allow this modelling
>>
>> Regards,
>> John
>
>

Received on Thursday, 12 June 2014 12:40:32 UTC