Re: [ontolex] Lexicography Module Specification complete and ready for review

On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 20:15, Jorge Gracia <jogracia@unizar.es> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> We processed all the corrections sent by Ilan, Sander, and Fahad and
> updated a new version. Thanks a lot for the useful feedback!
>
> In the following lines, I answer some of the doubts/remarks raised by some
> group members:
>
> John> "One comment is that there is a namespace clash between lime:entry
> and lexicog:entry, which may cause some confusion. Could we consider
> renaming this property to something like dictEntry?"
>
> In fact, introducing lexicog:entry as it was agreed in Leiden, has its
> pros and cons. Actually, the optimal solution would be to overload
> lime:entry with a new domain and range (LexicographicResource/Entry) but,
> as far as I understand, we cannot touch the lemon core and the other
> consolidated modules. This is the same reason why we cannot use
> lime:language and we use dct:language instead. An additional issue with
> "dictEntry" is that we are trying to avoid "dictionary-related" naming.
>
I don't really like this but anyway there needs to be some discussion of
this in the module description to warn users to be careful about namespaces
here.

Regards,
John

>
> Fahad> "we should add a describes property between Lexicon and
> LexicographicResource (otherwise there is no link between them) -- although
> this would mean changing the domain of describes."
>
> We can connect Lexicon to its associated LexicographicResource through
> dct:source, thus avoiding changing the semantics of lexicog:describes
>
> Fahad> "inverse property for entry?"
>
> The reason of not having inverse for lexicog:entry is that we "mimic" here
> the lime:entry property and lime:entry has no inverse property. However, if
> you foresee a use case in which an inverse would be necessary we can
> consider it.
>
> Fahad> "Not comfortable with the dictionary's language being specified two
> different times... why would the lexicographic resource have different
> associated languages from the lexicon?"
>
> Consider, for instance, a single multilingual LexicographicResource (with
> several values for dct:language) that is associated to several monolingual
> Lexicons (each of them with a single value for lime:language). In that case
> the language information will not be the same.
>
> Sander> "I'm no longer sure, however, what the actual use is of the
> subComponent relation. Its description suggests it is completely redundant,
> and therefore doesn't seem to follow the "rule of thumb" mentioned at the
> start of the documentation?"
>
> I agree that this relation is somehow redundant with respect to
> rdfs:member. However, some community members wanted to include it
> explicitly to cover situations in which you want to state that the
> connected super/subcomponents are of lexicographic nature, which you can do
> with lexicog:subComponent. In my view, the application of the "rule of
> thumb" mentioned at the beginning implies that in many cases (maybe in most
> cases) the use of lexicog:subComponent will not be needed. But, in the end,
> this is a modelling choice and some people will find it more useful than
> others.
>
> Sander> "I also wonder whether it would be good to divide the terminology
> over two main sections: "lexicographic" and "lexicon". This would follow
> the approach in Figure 1 and would more clearly separate the two
> uses/contexts."
>
> We will think how to do this while minimising changes in the report. Maybe
> a clearer introduction to figure 1 will help to clarify the
> lexicographic/lexicon division.
>
> Sander> "I would still very much like to add a 'usage guide' (as you
> suggested earlier, Julia) with examples from lexicographic resources."
>
> Indeed, this is still necessary. One of our agreements was to create a
> second report on "guidelines and best practises" to complement the Lexicog
> module with more examples and usage advise. Any volunteer to help in
> editing the document and coordinating the efforts? Sander? ;-)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> El mié., 6 feb. 2019 a las 9:57, Sander Stolk (<ssstolk@gmail.com>)
> escribió:
>
>> Dear Julia and Jorge,
>>
>> Thank you for your hard work! I only now got to reading through the
>> document.
>> It very much reflects our conclusions, and it makes for a very readable
>> and cohesive whole.
>> Much like Fahad, I mostly came up with typos or odd phrasings. You'll
>> find these below.
>>
>> I'm no longer sure, however, what the actual use is of the subComponent
>> relation.
>> Its description suggests it is completely redundant, and therefore
>> doesn't seem to follow the "rule of thumb" mentioned at the start of the
>> documentation?
>>
>> I also wonder whether it would be good to divide the terminology over two
>> main sections: "lexicographic" and "lexicon".
>> This would follow the approach in Figure 1 and would more clearly
>> separate the two uses/contexts.
>> I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter!
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Sander
>>
>> P.S. I would still very much like to add a 'usage guide' (as you
>> suggested earlier, Julia) with examples from lexicographic resources.
>>
>> -------
>>
>> associated to -> associated with / related to
>> comes as a logical step -> is a logical next step
>> allow to build -> allow for building / allow us to build   (similar
>> patterns elsewhere)
>> keep trace -> keep track / trace  (occurs multiple times)
>> tranlsations -> translations
>>
>> EXAMPLE 1 seems to have a redundant extra space preceding the
>> LexicalEntry statements?
>>
>> in a specific ordered and/or a hierarchy. -> in a specific order and/or
>> hierarchy
>>
>> EXAMPLE 2 uses ';' with rdfs:member even though ',' could be used
>>           (which would be more in line with previous examples).
>>
>> EXAMPLE 3 goes slightly amiss with spaces and lack of '.' in the final
>> statements.
>>           Additionally, perhaps it makes for an easier read to do
>> something like the following:
>>           :animal_n_comp
>>               rdf:_1 :animal_n_sense_1_comp ;
>>               rdf:_2 :animal_n_sense_2_comp .
>>           (i.e. leave any non-rdf:type statements below the subject
>> rather than behind it)
>>
>> subComponent SubClassOf: rdfs:member   ->  SubPropertyOf
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 17:58, Fahad Khan <anasfkhan81@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Julia/Jorge,
>>>
>>> Thanks for all of your hard work over the last few months. I've left
>>> some comments below, pretty much just pointing out some minor typos that
>>> I've found.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Fahad
>>>
>>>
>>> Section 1.1 2nd Paragraph
>>>
>>> ...used in the context of the work in...
>>> -> ...used in the context of work in...
>>>
>>> 3rd Paragraph
>>> Being interoperability...
>>> -> Interoperability being
>>>
>>> the nature of the lemon model being descriptive but not prescriptive,
>>> which facili neutrality towards different lexicographic views
>>> ->
>>> the nature of the lemon model being descriptive but not prescriptive,
>>> which facilitates neutrality towards different lexicographic views
>>>
>>> Note
>>> duplicities -> duplicates
>>>
>>> Section 2
>>>
>>> Choose a better name for the Figure 1 caption :)
>>> Section 2.1
>>> but complement, -> but complements
>>>
>>> Section 2.3
>>> In the diagram + examples we should add a describes property between
>>> Lexicon and LexicographicResource (otherwise there is no link between them)
>>> -- although this would mean changing the domain of describes.
>>>
>>> inverse property for entry?
>>>
>>> Section 2.4
>>> Not comfortable with the dictionary's language being specified two
>>> different times... why would the lexicographic resource have different
>>> associated languages from the lexicon?
>>>
>>> Section 2.5
>>> Example
>>> "en&"?
>>> Note
>>> arrengement -> arrangement
>>>
>>> Section 2.7
>>> 2nd paragraph
>>> glassses ->glasses
>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Sander Stolk, MSc MA
>>
>
>
> --
> Jorge Gracia, PhD
> Department of Computer Science and Systems Engineering
> University of Zaragoza
> http://jogracia.url.ph/web/
>