- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 22:55:00 +0200
- To: public-ontolex@w3.org
- Message-ID: <53A34E24.40402@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Dear John, all, it seems that there is somewhat of a preference to use "Multi-Word Expression" instead of "Phrase". Francis and Paul have argued that "Phrase" as a notion is too general. In your definition quoted from the "Dictionary of Lexicography", the crucial aspect is that the MWE has some non-compositional behaviour. I think this is crucial from a lexicon perspective as we would encourage including only such phrases in the lexicon that can not be fully analyzed compositionally by combining the references of their parts. However, we might for some reason or the other also represent Phrases in the lexicon in spite of being quite compositional. Thus, I am inclined to include both "Phrase" as a subClassOf of LexicalEntry and "MWE" as a subClassOf Phrase in the model. With this we allow people to express the non-compositional character of a Phrase if they want it, or use the generic "Phrase" if they do not wish to make this distinction. Just my two cents, Philipp. Am 13.06.14 15:00, schrieb John P. McCrae: > OK, I hadn't realised this was quite so controversial. Especially, > considering the common definition of phrase "A short written or spoken > expression.", and the use of the terms "phrasebook" and > "phraseological dictionary" in lexicography to indicate a dictionary > with many mulit-word units, including full sentences (e.g., Brewer's > dictionary or any Berlitz phrasebook). > > At any rate, we should not focus on definitions from pertinent fields > of linguistic like syntax (or we may as well use the definition from > statistical machine translation (Koehn et al. 2003)), instead we > should look to relevant fields, i.e., lexicography. > > Hartmann's "Dictionary of Lexicography" gives the following definitions: > > *multi-word expression: *A phrase consisting of two or more words > functioning as a single LEXEME. The constituents are relatively stable > (FIXED EXPRESSION) and, if used idiomatically, their combined meaning > is more or other than the sum of the parts, e.g. fly-by-night, face > the music. > > *multi-word lexical unit*: see MULTI-WORD EXPRESSION. > > *phrase*: Two or more words combined into a unit which performs a > syntactic function. > > I would read "phrase" as the more general definition and in fact > closer to what we wish to represent. That said long discussions about > naming are something I wish to avoid and if the majority think that > MWE is more appropriate I am OK with this. > > Regards, > John > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Francis Bond <bond@ieee.org > <mailto:bond@ieee.org>> wrote: > > 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 > <mailto: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 > <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, 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 <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 > > > > > > > > -- > Francis Bond <http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/fcbond/> > Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies > Nanyang Technological University > > -- 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
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2014 20:55:30 UTC