Re: usage of ontolex:phoneticRep for phonological transcriptions

Hi Matteo,

For DBnary, I am using ontolex:phoneticRep for both, and values are surrounds by /…/ or […] depending on the data I have to model.

I think this notation is quite standard.

It’s not really elegant though…

Regards,

Gilles,

> On 1 Mar 2023, at 12:26, Pellegrini Matteo (matteo.pellegrini) <matteo.pellegrini@unicatt.it> wrote:
> 
> 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