- From: Paul Buitelaar <paul.buitelaar@deri.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:48:48 +0100
- To: <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Gil, John, all, yes I agree with Gil here. Not all phrases are MWU's and the other way around. I would prefer to have MWU (or MWE/Multi-Word Expression) instead of 'phrase', as the latter has a broader and yet more specific meaning in syntactic structure. Paul On 13/06/2014 12:37, Gil Francopoulo wrote: > Hi, > > Excuse me but in English, the notion of "phrase" is rather different > from the notion of "multiword unit", see for instance the definition in > Crystal (a dictionary of linguistics and phonetics). > > The span of a multiword unit does not need to match the limits of well > formed phrases. > > The extreme situation is when a multiword unit is not a phrase but a > whole sentence like: "there is no free lunch" if the lexicon manager > needs to document the meaning of this "element" in his lexicon (other > issue: what part of speech ? interjection ?). > > Gil > > > > > Le 13/06/2014 13:09, John P. McCrae a écrit : >> Hi, >> >> The term "Phrase" is for me preferable to MultiWordUnit as it is more >> linguistic, less technical, shorter and the same as the /lemon/ model. >> I would also introduce a disjoint class "Word" as this is useful for >> saying an entry isn't a multi-word unit. If we do I don't think it >> hurts to include "Affix" as well to cover all our bases (that is >> Phrase for >1 words, Word for =1 word and Affix for <1 words). >> >> I have no objection to extending the use of confidence to senses >> (other than my existing objections to confidence being too poorly >> defined at the moment ;). >> >> I was discussing some use cases that required incompatibility in the >> case of diachronic changes in meaning, but thinking more about, it is >> quite narrow and perhaps should be pushed to LexInfo 3.0 (or whatever >> we are going to do as a more complete but non-standard model). >> >> Regards, >> John >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Philipp Cimiano >> <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote: >> >> John, all, >> >> a few things. I am in favour of introducing the class >> "MultiWordUnit" as a subclass of LexicalEntry, fair enough. >> >> Concerning the properties "context", "condition" and >> "incompatibility". >> >> "context" and "condition" are useful, clearly. But then the >> property "confidence" of a Translation should also be there. I see >> the three equally useful and equaly vague semantically as they >> could have anyhting as a range. >> >> Concerning "incompatibility": not sure, this seems like one of >> many possible properties that could be defined between senses, so >> it seems quite arbitraty to pick this one out. >> >> Just my two cents, >> >> Philipp. >> >> Am 06.06.14 17:25, schrieb John P. McCrae: >>> 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 >> >> >> -- >> >> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano >> >> Phone:+49 521 106 12249 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249> >> Fax:+49 521 106 12412 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012412> >> Mail:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> >> >> Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS) >> Raum 2.307 >> Universität Bielefeld >> Inspiration 1 >> 33619 Bielefeld >> >> >
Received on Friday, 13 June 2014 11:51:17 UTC