W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ontolex@w3.org > May 2015

Re: ontolex module ready for final discussion

From: John P. McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 13:17:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC5njqoLVmsw1283Y5dXS1nYya6qp-k_dvBtT+qp6=g0KPRKZw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Cc: Elena Montiel Ponsoda <emontiel@fi.upm.es>, public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Philipp Cimiano <
cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:

>  Hi Elena, all,
>  I try to answer your comments below...
> Regards,
> Philipp.
> Am 07.05.15 um 16:59 schrieb Elena Montiel Ponsoda:
>  ·         Definition of LexicalEntry class: “The class *lexical entry*
> represents a single unit of analysis in the lexicon comprising a collection
> of forms that are morphologically related or have a single pronunciation
> and have the same set of meanings.”
> o   Why morphologically related “or” have a single pronunciation? Isn’t
> the use of “or” a bit inaccurate?
> o   Regarding the fact of having “a single pronunciation”, what happens
> with a word like “advertisement” with an American and a British
> pronunciation? Why should we have two lexical entries for this? In fact,
> the same lexical entry would be pointing to two different lexical forms
> with different phonetic representations, right?
>                 Well, exactly because of the "colour" example you mention
> below. The pronunciation of "colour" and "color" is the same, but they are
> not morphologically related, are they? We do not want to have two lexical
> entires, that's why we need the "OR" in the definition.
>                 For the case of "advertisement": it would be one entry
> with *one* form and two different pronunciations of this form. We can add
> this example if it help. Why are you implying that the definition requires
> to have two entries? It is one entry with one form and two pronunciations
> of the latter.
 This definition of lexical entry is way off the mark:

   - 'Morphologically related' is too vague, 'stabilize', 'stable' and
   'destabilize' are all morphologically related, however they are certainly
   different lexical entries
   - 'Single pronunciation' has more problems than even suggested... both
   'play' and 'played' are the same lexical entry with a different
   pronunciations! It is very hard to find entries based on pronunciation as
   the changes in pronunciation may occur at the beginning ('cymraeg' vs 'y
   gymraeg'), middle ('Bruder' vs 'Brüder') or end.
   - Having the 'same set of meanings' is also questionable... 'I play' and
   'I played' are the same lexical entries but with different and clearly
   disjoint meanings (that is past and present)

A better definition is

'Lexical Entry is a unit of analysis of lexicon, that consist of a set of
forms that are syntactically related and a set of base meanings that are
associated with all of these forms. Thus, a lexical entry is a word,
multiword expression or affix with a single part-of-speech, morphological
pattern, etymology and set of senses.'

>   ·         As for the Definition property  you say that the domain can
> be a LexicalConcept or a LexicalSense, but this is neither reflected in the
> figure above nor in the LexicalSense and LexicalConcept descriptions.
>             I added this without consulting anybody else as I understood
> that was a request from the community. The picture has to be updated.

I see no reason to have a definition property in OntoLex. SKOS already has
a definition property that seems more than suitable, is there any reason to
reinvent the wheel here?

Received on Friday, 8 May 2015 11:18:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:36:49 UTC