W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ontolex@w3.org > March 2021

FRaC Faliscan language Example

From: Fahad Khan <anasfkhan81@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 12:17:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK+N+9jPAZv6Qr0tPHjZs=tMD2oBQUeQPaGPv-JLGrKPZPHGmQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>, Valeria Quochi <vquochi@gmail.com>
Hi Everyone,
I have been working on modelling an entry from a lexicon currently being
compiled as part of an Italian project on Italic languages and I think it
potentially shows some limitations in the current ontolex/FRaC approach.  I
would like to discuss this at the next telco but I will give a description
here in order to get some feedback from the list too.

In the example in question we have a Faliscan word, ekupetaris, which has
different attested representations for the same form (or same morphological
variant). That is, the masculine, nominative, singular form has been
attested in the following written variants:  "ECVPETARIS", "EQUPETARS",
"ekupetaris", "ekvopetaris", "ekvopetars", "epetaris", "eppetaris".  Each
of these written variants has at least one attestation in some inscription.
In the case of "ekupetaris" there are four different attestations; the
others have one apiece.

According to the ontolex-lemon model these are all written representations
of the same Form element (the masculine, nominative, singular form of the
noun).  This approach would give us something like (elipsis added for
readability):

:ekupetaris a ontolex:Form ;
    lexinfo:case lexinfo:nominativeCase ;lexinfo:gender lexinfo:masculine ;
lexinfo:number lexinfo:singular ;
    frac:attestation :att_0, :att_1, :att_2, :att_3,..., :att_9 ;
ontolex:writtenRep "ECVPETARIS"@xfa, "EQUPETARS"@xfa, ... "eppetaris"@xfa .


In other words (pardon the pun) we would lose the link between each written
representation and its attestations.  We could recuperate this (to an
extent) by making the written representation the value of the FRaC
quotation property for each attestation, e.g., (for the first and sixth
attestations)

:att_0 a frac:Attestation ;
    frac:attestationGloss "Pa2 lines 2-3, Certainty: certain, Bibliography:
Pellegrini-Prosdocimi 1967, pp. 328-331" ;
    frac:quotation "ekupetaris" .

:att_5 a frac:Attestation ;
    frac:attestationGloss "Pa6, Certainty: certain,
Bibliography:Pellegrini-Prosdocimi 1967, pp. 344-348" ;
    frac:quotation "EQUPETARS" .


This feels unsatisfactory to me for several reason (though it might not to
others): not least because we might want to associate other information to
the variant written representation (e.g., a certain written representation
might have been used for a certain period or in a certain geographical
region and this isn't always possible to specify with a language tag). Two
additional possibilities that come to mind here are creating different
Forms for each of the written representations (forms with the same
morphological feature but with a different writtenRep value and different
attestations) and then using the sameAs property to say they're the same
Form. Another possibility could be the creation of a new class (in FRaC),
something like AttestedRepresentation which is also a FRaC observable with
associated properties attestedRep stringValue such that writtenRep is
equivalent to attestedRep o stringValue.

What does everyone else think?
Cheers
Fahad
Received on Monday, 8 March 2021 11:18:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 8 March 2021 11:18:20 UTC