- From: John McCrae <johnmccrae@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 13:58:59 +0100
- To: public-ontolex@w3.org
- Message-ID: <e6ecdb24-90b4-4b6f-a79d-c63d9c33b082@gmail.com>
Hi all,
We will have the next meeting of the OntoLex Morph group next Tuesday
the 22nd April at 10:00 UTC (12pm Berlin time).
I went through the draft and made quite a few changes but there are
still some issues that I think we need to discuss before we go ahead
with a public review
* There is a note in Section 3.2 that recommends the use of NFD
Unicode normalization. While this is well motivated, it contradicts
the RDF spec
<https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-Graph-Literal>, which
recommends NFC normalisation.
* I am not sure how the 'involves' property is intended to work. It
links rules to morphs, but does not say which form a morph is
participating in. As such, I think this leads to ambiguity that
could make this modelling ineffective in practice.
* The comparison with the `decomp` module in Section 5.1 is quite
questionable. The decomp module can currently capture examples such
as Example 17 in the spec and it is not clear to what extent the
modelling introduced in the new module improves on the existing
modelling.
* As Matteo's comment in Example 20, shows it doesn't seem that the
word formation modelling in Section 5.2 works for most examples. My
feeling is that the idea of "inflection slot" from Section 4.3 needs
to be generalised to the case of word formation as well.
Talk to you all on Zoom next week:
https://universityofgalway-ie.zoom.us/j/92481255627?pwd=sPCDXhhPBf9p5Lm2xsop9Ixkm8qET9.1
Regards,
John
Received on Monday, 14 April 2025 12:59:07 UTC