- From: Francis Bond <bond@ieee.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 20:12:14 +0800
- To: "John P. McCrae" <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Cc: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
I think phrase is wider than the normal use of MWU. "a very interesting book I picked up last Thursday" is a phrase, as is "dog ate two cats with relish", but they would not normally be called multi-word units. Of course, we can define our own meanings, but it is good not to strain the standard usage too much. On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 7:09 PM, John P. McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote: > 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> 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, conditions, definitions, examples and >> incompatibility >> 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 >> Fax: +49 521 106 12412 >> Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >> >> Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS) >> Raum 2.307 >> Universität Bielefeld >> Inspiration 1 >> 33619 Bielefeld > > -- Francis Bond <http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/fcbond/> Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies Nanyang Technological University
Received on Friday, 13 June 2014 12:13:03 UTC