Re: ontolex & vartrans

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/%E7%B4%99>
http://tangorin.com/kanji/%E5%B8%8B <http://tangorin.com/kanji/%E5%B8%8B>
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 <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
> 
> Office CITEC-2.307
> Universitätsstr. 21-25
> 33615 Bielefeld, NRW
> Germany