Monnet OntoLex Compatibility

From Ontology-Lexica Community Group
Jump to: navigation, search

This document describes the backwards compatibility of the Ontolex Lemon Model to the Monnet lemon model

Summary of changes

Classes

  • LemonElement: Absent!
  • Argument: Same
  • Component: Previously "element max 1"
  • (Lexical/Sense)Condition: Absent!
  • Constituent: Deprecated, replace with Component
  • (Lexical/Sense)Context: Absent!
  • Definition: Absent!
  • Form: Previously "representation min 1 Literal" now "writtenRep min 1 Literal"
  • Frame: Same
  • HasLanguage: Deprecated (sameAs LexicalEntry or Lexicon or MorphologicalPattern)
  • LexicalEntry: Previously "canonicalForm max 1 Form", "lexicalForm min 1 Form"
  • Part: Absent!
  • Word: Absent!
  • Phrase: Absent!
  • Lexicon: Previously "entry min 1", "language exactly 1"
  • MorphPattern: Removed
  • HasPattern: Deprecated (sameAs LexicalEntry or Lexicon)
  • LexicalTopic: Absent!
  • MorphPattern: Removed
  • MorphTransform: Removed
  • Node: Deprecated, replace with Component
  • PhraseElement: Deprecated (sameAs Argument or Component)
  • PropertyValue: Absent!
  • Prototype: Removed
  • SyntacticRoleMarker: Deprecated (sameAs LexicalEntry or PropertyValue)
  • UsageExample: Absent!

Object Properties

  • condition: Absent!
  • propertyDomain: Absent!
  • propertyRange: Absent!
  • context: Same
  • decomposition: Deprecated, replace with subterm
  • definition: Absent!
  • edge: Deprecated, replace with subterm
  • element: Deprecated, replace with identifies
  • entry: Absent!
  • example: Absent!
  • formVariant: Absent!
  • generates: Removed
  • leaf: Deprecated, replace with identifies
  • lexicalForm: Same
  • canonicalForm: Same
  • otherForm: Same
  • abstractForm: Deprecated?
  • property: Absent!
  • lexicalVariant: Absent!
  • marker: Same
  • nextTransform: Removed
  • pattern: Removed
  • phraseRoot: Deprecated, replace with identifies
  • reference: Same
  • isReferenceOf: Same
  • semArg: Same
  • isA: Same
  • subjOfProp: Same
  • objOfProp: Same
  • extrinsicArg: Absent!
  • sense: Same
  • isSenseOf: Same
  • senseRelation: Absent!
  • broader: Absent!
  • narrower: Absent!
  • incompatible: Absent!
  • equivalent: Absent!
  • subsense: Same
  • synArg: Same
  • synBehavior: Same
  • topic: Absent!
  • transform: Removed
  • tree: Absent!

Data Properties

  • language: Same
  • optional: Same
  • representation: Previously range was not limited to xsd:string
  • separator: Absent!
  • value: Absent

Detail of major differences to be discussed

Better description of senses

Monnet _lemon_ provides much better modelling for how senses are described and how they relate. In particular the following should likely be allowed by OntoLex Lemon

  • Definitions on senses
  • Examples of sense usage
  • Contexts describing in what register, domain, etc. a particular word is used with a given meaning
  • Conditions describing specific reasons when a sense should be chosen. These conditions must be inferable from the discourse (i.e., the text document) in contrast to contexts, which (generally) require non-discourse properties (e.g., when published, intended audience, etc.).
  • Relationships between sense, especially incompatibility (indicating that two senses in spite of having the same reference are distinct)

Subclasses of lexical entry

Monnet _lemon_ supports indicating if a lexical entry is a multi-word unit, single word or affix. Should OntoLex Lemon also?

Generic linguistic types

Monnet _lemon_ introduces properties (formVariant, lexicalVariant, senseRelationship, property, PropertyValue) to indicate a particular property is linguistically interesting, e.g., "partOfSpeech" vs. "createdBy". We should consider whether to continue in this vein.

Others

I assume entry is omitted only as an oversight.

extrinsicArg is likely too narrow to be worth including in the draft but we can consider it

tree is likely to be removed as OntoLex Lemon doesn't handle phrase structure grammars as exactly