Re: ontolex & vartrans

Hi Felix,

This is something of a thorny question and the general best advise is to
ask a lexicographer or follow the existing guidelines of your lexicon. In
general, it is quite possible to have two written representations of the
same form as long as they have the same semantics, syntax and phonetics,
this is the case for the 'sushi' Kanji. I am not sure about the Kanji
'帋'... I doubt it is used exactly the same as '紙', and in which case they
should be two lexical entries. The decision depends primarily on whether
there are different properties or senses that need to be recorded on each
entry.

Regards,
John

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Philipp,
>
>
>
> Am 30.06.2015 um 21:33 schrieb Philipp Cimiano <
> cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>:
>
>  Dear all,
>
>  I have cleaned up the ontolex and the vartrans modules (up to
> translation). I hope to finish with synsem and vartrans this week actually.
>
> While doing this, a question came up. Under the definition of lexical
> variants, we now say:
>
> By lexical relations, we understand those relations at the surface forms,
> mainly motivated by grammatical requirements, style (Wortklang), and
> linguistic economy (helping to avoid excessive denominative repetition and
> improving textual coherence). Examples of lexical relations are the
> following:
>
>    - Orthographic variants
>       - Diatopic variants (e.g., localize vs. localise)
>       - Diachronic variants (e.g., different scripts for languages such
>       as Azeri)
>       - Ideographic variants (e.g., in Japanese both “寿 司” and “鮨” are
>       used for sushi)
>
>
> just a clarification question: if you have variants like these
> http://tangorin.com/kanji/%E7%B4%99 <http://tangorin.com/kanji/紙>
> http://tangorin.com/kanji/%E5%B8%8B <http://tangorin.com/kanji/帋>
> there is not a compound orthographic variant (like in your example) but
> both kanji express the same concept. One (the first one) is common in
> today’s japanese writing system, the other is a traditional form. Such a
> relation is quite common due to historic developments of kanji characters
> and it may be of interest to capture for various linguist researchers. How
> would one express such a variation?
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
>
>    -
>
>
>    - Affixal variants
>       - Derivational variants (e.g., adjective -> adverb variation: quick
>       vs. quickly)
>       - Inflectional variants (e.g., adjective agreement: rojo, roja,
>       rojos, rojas)
>
>
>    - Morphosyntactic variants
>       - Compounds (e.g., ecological tourism vs. eco-tourism)
>       - Abbreviations (including acronyms, among others. E.g., peer to
>       peer and p2p; WYSWYG, FAO, UNO, etc.)
>       - Rephrasing variants (e.g., immigration law vs. law for regulating
>       and controlling immigration)
>
>
> However, we define above in the spec ortographic variants as form variants
> not as lexical variants.
> The same holds for the usage of different scripts which are form and not
> lexical variants.  The same holds for inflectional variants (adjective
> agreement) that is also modelled by form variants.
>
> Rephrasing variants: these are strictly speaking not lexical variants but
> rather term variants, right?
>
> So my question to Elena and Lupe: can you come up with a list of relations
> that are clearly relations between lexical entries and not between forms of
> one lexical entry?
>
> Thanks and best regards,
>
> Philipp.
>
> --
> --
> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
> AG Semantic Computing
> Exzellenzcluster für Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
> Universität Bielefeld
>
> Tel: +49 521 106 12249
> Fax: +49 521 106 6560
> Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>
> Office CITEC-2.307
> Universitätsstr. 21-25
> 33615 Bielefeld, NRW
> Germany
>
>
>