Re: usage of ontolex:phoneticRep for phonological transcriptions

Hi,

Gilles' approach would have been my suggestion as well. I guess "phonetic"
here comes from the use of IPA/Sampa for both purposes, and it's the
International PHONETIC Alphabet. The name comes from the late 19th c., and
also in literature of the time, phonology and phonetics were not clearly
distinguished, yet. (So you have language descriptions where allophons are
treated like full phonemes. This is because minimal pair tests were
introduced only at a later stage, I guess by Kenneth Pike in the 195os or
so.)

Best,
Christian

Gilles Sérasset <Gilles.Serasset@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr> schrieb am Do., 2.
März 2023, 00:05:

> 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
>
>
>