- From: Pellegrini Matteo (matteo.pellegrini) <matteo.pellegrini@unicatt.it>
- Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2023 11:26:46 +0000
- To: "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <AS8PR05MB8771F48ADDB415A20E5F9F849AAD9@AS8PR05MB8771.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Dear all, I write this email to ask for your advice on the possibility of using ontolex:phoneticRep for phonological – rather than strictly phonetic – transcriptions of forms. Indeed, the name and definition of ontolex:phoneticRep suggest that it should be used for phonetic trancriptions. But what if a resource provides a phonological, rather than phonetic, transcription of wordforms? Should we take ontolex:phoneticRep to be intended to be used for any kind of sound representation, and thus also for such phonological transcriptions? I am asking this because I am working at an ontology to be used for the conversion to ontolex-compliant RDF lexicons of paradigmatic lexicons released in a standard format that is being developed right now (Paralex, a project led by Sacha Beniamine at the Surrey Morphology Group). In that standard, the idea is to have generic "sound" transcriptions, leaving up to data creators the choice whether the transcription will be phonetic or phonological: so there will be a generic column "phon_form" that can be used for both. When converting to an ontolex-compliant lexicon, intuitively I think it would be reasonable to consider these transcriptions as ontolex:phoneticRep of the wordforms of the resource(s). However, it is possible that the transcription is phonological, rather than phonetic, strictly speaking. Would it be a problem to treat such phonological transcriptions as ontolex:phoneticRep? If so, what would your advice be on what to do? Thanks in advance, Matteo Pellegrini [http://static.unicatt.it/ext-portale/5xmille%20firma%20mail%202022.jpg]
Received on Wednesday, 1 March 2023 18:13:14 UTC