Re: Translating Lemon/OntoLex (Help wanted)

Hello all,

I have done the Romanian, but this is true for any translation. Before addl
corrections, it would make sense to have the diagrams with the expressions
translated so the correction is done using the diagram. Otherwise I can't
be 100% sure on my own translation.

Success,
Christian Tzurcanu

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:19 PM, QUATTRI, Francesca [11901993r] <
francesca.quattri@connect.polyu.hk> wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> thanks for the good work.
>
> I've started adding my two cents in the list.
>
> Clearly a literal translation of the terms does not work; we should really
> refer to terminology used in similar models as primary source. If multiple
> translations are acceptable, we should either leave multiple entries, or go
> for the most frequent one.
>
> Finally, a double check by mother tongue speakers for Romanian, Swedish
> and Dutch would be great.
>
>
>   Regards,
> Francesca
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* johnmccrae@gmail.com <johnmccrae@gmail.com> on behalf of John P.
> McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 22, 2014 6:08 AM
> *To:* Elena Montiel Ponsoda
> *Cc:* public-ontolex
> *Subject:* Re: Translating Lemon/OntoLex (Help wanted)
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Elena Montiel Ponsoda <emontiel@fi.upm.es
> > wrote:
>
>> Dear John,
>>
>> Lupe and I were having a look at the translation of the ontolex labels
>> and were wondering how "flexible" we can be with labels.
>>
>> We are of the opinion that labels should be as descriptive as possible
>> (without being definitions, of course) in order to guarantee that users
>> understand as quick and easy as possible the meaning of the concepts behind.
>> It would be desirable that native users of a certain language are able to
>> deduce what is meant by a certain label without having to look up the
>> definition (or at least try it...). And that underestanding prevails over
>> conciseness of the term. And not only understanding, but also fluency, I
>> mean, using those words or expressions that are more natural and fluent to
>> the native speaker instead of sticking to the original term in the
>> Identifier (Not sure if it is clear what I mean...).
>> For example, in the case of senseRelation, instead of saying "relación de
>> sentidos", it would be more natural to say "relación entre sentidos".
>>
> Of course... "relation of senses" is weird in English as well, "relation
> between senses" would be preferable in English if a preposition must be
> used.
>
>> IN the case of "translatable as", we would say "se traduce como" instead
>> of "traducible por", although the latter is 100% correct and would be more
>> faithfull to the original, so to say...
>>
> Yeah, I find the English word 'translatable' to be quite ugly... but
> concise. The reflexive passive seems a much better way to express this.
>
>>
>> We were also wondering if we could use a verbal phrase in the translation
>> of an objectProperty or dataTypeProperties.
>> For example: writtenRep -> "tiene representación escrita", instead of
>> "representación escrita", so that the directionality of the relation is
>> clear and is not to be confused with "es representación escrita de"...
>>
> I would not put the English label to "has written representation" as the
> direction is should be obvious from the context, thus I would avoid adding
> these words to other languages as well.
>
>>
>> In fact, I am not sure we are consistent in the names we have given to
>> Identifiers, since in some case we use "isConceptOf" (for inversed
>> relations?), whereas for the direct relations we just use the name/term in
>> the identifier but not the verb. The question would be, why not using the
>> verb and preposition, if needed, in the labels for properties? It would
>> make labels more consistent.
>>
> Adding a verb and a preposition helps clearly identify inverses from the
> original property, that is concept/isConceptOf is a more distinct pair than
> something like isConcept/isConceptOf.
>
>>
>> As for capitalization, you have use capital leters for all labels in
>> English. We think that it may be better to use the conventions of each
>> language. In the case of German, capital letters for nouns vs. lower case
>> for verbs. In Spanish lower case for nouns and verbs, etc.
>>
> Yeah with the exception of German, I think there are no fixed rules for
> capitalization. I have tended to use title case for the English labels as
> the labels feel like the titles of concepts... I am unsure what is best,
> but perhaps we start with lower-case, as it is easier to fix this if it
> seems wrong after.
>
>  Regards,
> John
>
>>
>> It's all for now. More thoughts to come.
>> Best,
>> Elena.
>>
>>
>> El 21/11/2014 15:51, John P. McCrae escribió:
>>
>>  Hi all,
>>>
>>> It would be good as the goal of this group is to help people to make
>>> multilingual resources, if we made the Lemon/OntoLex model also available
>>> with multiple translations. To this end I have started to collect
>>> translations of all the labels in a spreadsheet here:
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yATI7qxZYD2huxExIwjQusWmT-
>>> i2M70GEc5XvZyqhKE/edit?usp=sharing
>>>
>>> If you have the time and inclination I would greatly appreciate
>>> contributions, especially new languages.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> John
>>>
>>
>>
>           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>        * 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.*
>