ontolex:usage

Dear list members,

I would like to elicit some feedback on the suggestion  to use
ontolex:usage for elements other than ontolex:LexicalSense. This would be a
backward-compatible revision of the core model (dropping the domain
restriction of ontolex:usage, no rewording or diagram revision needed).

In recent OntoLex-Morph discussions (
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qdYg1jvf-YR8bmfKHE3kyRXAJvacTu1zE2P1PM4AZgM/edit?usp=sharing),
we discussed possible uses of ontolex:usage, resp., its subproperties
defined in LexInfo. The context of this discussion is that we characterize
inflected forms (!), morphemes (LexicalEntries!) and (optionally)
morphological rules (no OntoLex core counterpart) in terms of their usage
features (archaic, dialectal, formal register, etc.).

In principle, this is possible with ontolex:usage. However, ontolex:usage
is defined as a property of ontolex:LexicalSense (thanks to Penny
Labropoulou for pointing that out), but some of the subproperties (defined
in LexInfo) are either not restricted to senses (but can be equally applied
to, say, forms) or are even explicitly addressing lexical units other than
senses.

In terms of the information ontolex:usage already provides, there is very
little in these properties that wouldn't be useful to have for lexical
forms or lexical entries, as well. And even looking on some definitions for
these sub-properties (e.g., lexinfo:domain: "usage marker which identifies
the specialized field of knowledge in which a lexical unit is mainly
used"), this seems to have been intended (otherwise, why "lexical unit" and
not "lexical sense"?).

lexinfo:socioCultural is one point in case: "usage marker which identifies
the use of a given lexical unit by particular social groups and/or in
certain types of communicative situations depending on their level of
formality". This does not involve semantics, but pragmatics, so the
difference between formal and informal speech shouldn't even exist for
senses (~ context-independent meaning). For some instances, even the name
indicates that it's not for a lexical sense, e.g. "archaicForm".

Basically, there are three options:
1. dropping the domain restriction of ontolex:usage,
2. deprecating ontolex:usage in favor of a novel (and more flexibly
defined) lexinfo:usage, or
3. duplicating ontolex:usage and its subproperties under a novel property
with the same function (but different domain).

My preference would be option 1, I could live with 2 (although I'm not sure
it has any benefit over 1), but I have strong concerns against option 3. In
the end, this would unnecessarily inflate the vocabulary and create
inconsistencies between otherwise equivalent information in different
datasets.

Ideas?

Best,
Christian