Re: mapping properties of forms in Lexinfo

Thank you all for your answers and suggestions!

In this first phase of the work, I think I will follow the advice of  
those who suggested directly instantiating resource values as  
individuals. At the same time I will post an issue on git to suggest  
integrations (I noticed that in Olia the diminutive and endearment  
seem united and I am thinking about what other examples to bring,  
besides Italian).

I take the opportunity to ask for another opinion. With this formalization:

<http://example.org/mylexicon/politicastro  
<http://example.org/mylexicon/politicastro>>
     to ontolex:Word;
     rdfs:label "politicastro"@it;
     lexinfo:partOfSpeech lexinfo:noun;
     olia:hasEvaluativeFeature myfeatures:pejorative.

one could have a triple inference like this:
<http://example.org/mylexicon/politicastro> rdf:type  
olia:LinguisticAnnotation .

(because hasFeature has the domain "linguisticAnnotation"). Could this  
give reasoning problems in your opinion?

Thank you in advance,
all bests.
Flavia


Gilles Sérasset <Gilles.Serasset@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr> ha scritto:

> Dear Flavia,
>
> In DBnary, some languages have morphology modelled extensively (we  
> do not model the word formation processes).
>
> For this, I use either lexinfo or Olia depending on the language.  
> E.g. for German, I have to use OliA because I was missing some  
> classes and relations. For French, lexinfo is sufficient but I’m  
> considering using OliA to have interoperability between languages.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gilles,
>
>> On 12 Apr 2023, at 13:14, Christian Chiarcos  
>> <christian.chiarcos@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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 <mailto: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://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  
>> <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 <mailto: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#  
>>> <http://example.org/myfeatures#>> .
>>> @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#  
>>> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>> ..
>>> @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#  
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>> ..
>>> @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#  
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>> .
>>> @prefix olia <http://purl.org/olia/olia.owl#  
>>> <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#  
>>> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>> ..
>>> @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#  
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>> ..
>>> @prefix ontolex: <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#  
>>> <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#>> ..
>>> @prefix lexinfo: <http://www.lexinfo.net/ontology/3.0/lexinfo#  
>>> <http://www.lexinfo.net/ontology/3.0/lexinfo#>> ..
>>> @prefix olia <http://purl.org/olia/olia.owl#  
>>> <http://purl.org/olia/olia.owl#>> .
>>> @prefix myfeatures: <http://example.org/  
>>> <http://example.org/>myfeatures#> .
>>>
>>> <http://example.org/mylexicon/politicastro  
>>> <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/ <https://acoli-repo.github.io/olia/>
>>>
>>> [2]  
>>> http://web.archive.org/web/20131118135345/http://linguistics-ontology.org/gold-2010.owl  
>>> <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  
>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Received on Friday, 14 April 2023 15:00:32 UTC