Re: mapping properties of forms in Lexinfo

Dear Flavia, dear all,

as for the different options:

(1) If you look for a quick solution, best create your own inventory and
map it to LexInfo features (using owl:sameAs links), or to LexInfo or OLiA
classes (using rdf:type/rdfs:subClassOf/owl:equivalentClass links), as
suggested by Alik. This is the fastest approach, and it's also the
cleanest, because if you're incorrect in your equations, these can be
rectified without touching your data, but only your vocabulary. You can
even postpone the linking. (You should then distribute your vocabulary
along with your data, still, or, alternatively, deposit it under a
resolvable URL. If you don't want to provide a proper ontology, please
provide a list of URIs for terms/tags/abbreviations you used so that others
can help you later on to come up with an ontology.)

(2) If you look for a solution with maximum interoperability with other
OntoLex resources, try to use LexInfo directly. There might be gaps, but as
Fahad pointed out, you can suggest LexInfo extensions. The downside is that
it might take a while until they are processed -- and maybe they won't be
approved at all. I would encourage you to suggest to extend LexInfo with
pejorative and augmentative (either as class or as feature value) because
both are relatively widely needed. As for endearment, I am less certain,
could you demonstrate that there are multiple languages (preferrably not
just dialects of a single language) where this category is morphologically
different from diminuitive? For help with LexInfo, this mailing list is the
right point of contact ;)

(3) You can also use your local vocabulary and LexInfo together. So, if
there are apparent gaps in LexInfo, nothing gets lost, even if LexInfo
isn't extended (yet).

(4) If you look for a solution with maxiumum interoperability with corpora
and/or annotation tools, you can use OLiA. However, normally, OLiA isn't
used directly, but instead, you should create your own vocabulary
("annotation model") and then link it with OLiA classes (as suggested by
Alik). Note that LexInfo is an OLiA annotation model, as well. So, this
option is effectively the same as the first. Like option (2), OLiA can be
extended with GitHub issues and pull requests. If you need help with that,
you can also mail me directly.

(5) Instead of OLiA, you can also use the GOLD ontology (the terminology is
a bit different, but you also should create and link your own
vocabulary/"community of practice extension", then). I wouldn't advise to
do so at the moment, for two reasons: On the one hand, GOLD hasn't been
properly maintained since the 2010 release, and it is thus not extensible;
on the other hand, GOLD is already linked with OLiA, so if you really need
a mapping to GOLD, you can bootstrap it via options (1)-(4). Same for
ISOcat. From OLiA, you could also bootstrap a LexInfo mapping, but I would
advise against it, because using LexInfo directly would be the more natural
approach for lexical resources.

These features can be attached with lexinfo:morphosyntacticFeature (or
subproperties) to ontolex:LexicalEntry or ontolex:Form. As for treating
these features as word formation processes: In addition to Francesco's
proposal, you can also add these morphosyntactic features to either
morph:Rule or morph:Morph, either directly with
"lexinfo:morphosyntacticFeature" or as a bundle of morphosyntactic features
in the "morph:grammaticalMeaning" object of rules or morphs.

Best,
Christian

Am Di., 11. Apr. 2023 um 19:43 Uhr schrieb Francesco Mambrini <
f.mambrini@gmail.com>:

> Dear Flavia,
> Another option might be to explicitly model the derivation process between
> lexical entries, using morphemes and derivation rules.
> You may be interested to see how we did this in LiLa, using the new Morph
> Ontolex module:
> https://aclanthology.org/2022.ldl-1.10.pdf
>
> https://publires.unicatt.it/it/publications/the-two-approaches-to-word-formation-in-the-lila-knowledge-base-o
>
>
> Best,
> Francesco
>
>
> Il giorno 11 apr 2023, alle ore 19:05, Alik Kirillovich <
> alik.kirillovich@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> Dear Flavia,
>
> You can also create your resource-specific features, but define them as
> instances of the popular OLiA [1] or GOLD [2] ontologies. (OLiA is more
> suitable to model corpus annotation schemas, but can be used in lexical
> resources too). In this case, your resource retains interoperability with
> other OLiA/GOLD-based resources and applications.
>
> For example, define the *pejorative* feature:
>
> @prefix : <http://example.org/myfeatures#> .
>> @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> ..
>> @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> ..
>> @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
>> @prefix olia <http://purl.org/olia/olia.owl#> ..
>>
>> :pejorative
>>   a olia:PejorativeEvaluative;
>>   rdfs:label
>>     "pejorative"@en,
>>     "peggiorativo"@en.
>>
>
> And then link it to the *personacce* lexical entry:
>
> @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> ..
>> @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> ..
>> @prefix ontolex: <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#> ..
>> @prefix lexinfo: <http://www.lexinfo.net/ontology/3.0/lexinfo#> ..
>> @prefix olia <http://purl.org/olia/olia.owl#> .
>> @prefix myfeatures: <http://example.org/myfeatures#> .
>>
>> <http://example.org/mylexicon/politicastro>
>
>   a ontolex:Word;
>>   rdfs:label "politicastro"@it;
>>   lexinfo:partOfSpeech lexinfo:noun;
>>   olia:hasEvaluativeFeature myfeatures:pejorative.
>>
>
> If you use OLiA, the easiest way to link features to lexical entries/forms
> is to reuse subproperties of the olia_system:hasFeature object property
> (e.g. olia:hasEvaluativeFeature as in the example below). However, defining
> your own object properties (as subproperties of
> lexinfo:morphosyntacticProperty) may be a more preferable way. First, the
> domain of olia_system:hasFeature is the olia_system:LinguisticAnnotation
> class, and so, strictly speaking, this property is a property of
> annotations (i.e. token-level entities), not lexical entries or forms. And,
> second, such subproperties are not defined for all feature classes. Also,
> you can link all the features just by the single top-level
> lexinfo:morphosyntacticProperty property.
>
> Best,
> Alexander Kirillovich
>
> [1] https://acoli-repo.github.io/olia/
>
> [2]
> http://web.archive.org/web/20131118135345/http://linguistics-ontology.org/gold-2010.owl
>
> вт, 11 апр. 2023 г. в 19:09, Fahad Khan <fahad.khan@ilc.cnr.it>:
>
>> Dear Flavia,
>> DiminuitiveNoun exists as a class in lexinfo. The others don't, but you
>> can open a new issue <https://github.com/ontolex/lexinfo/issues> on the
>> lexinfo github suggesting them as additions  to the ontology.
>> Cheers
>> Fahad
>>
>> Il giorno mar 11 apr 2023 alle ore 16:58 Flavia Sciolette <
>> flavia.sciolette@ilc.cnr.it> ha scritto:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I write this email to ask for your advice. I am working on a
>>> conversion of a lexical resource for Italian in an ontolex-compliant
>>> format. This starting resource describes lemmas and associated forms,
>>> some of which are derived with suffixes (e.g. for the diminutive or
>>> the pejorative). This kind of form is described with a feature and
>>> associated values: “dim” for diminutive, “end” for endearment, “pej”
>>> for pejorative, and “aug” for augmentative. I am having some trouble
>>> with the conversion of these values to define forms. I set out to use
>>> Lexinfo, but, to the best of my knowledge, I have not found exact
>>> equivalents. I thought about using a sub-property of morphosyntactic
>>> properties but first wanted to figure out if there was a way to use a
>>> popular vocabulary like Lexinfo, rather than maintaining
>>> resource-specific values. I apologize for this possibly naive concern.
>>>
>>> Thank you in advance.
>>>
>>> Flavia Sciolette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>