Talk:Final Model Specification
"A Lexical Entry can be realized in different grammatical realizations depending on the requirements of the linguistic context it appears in. These different grammatical realizations are represented as different Forms of the lexical entry in the core. A Form is defined as: "a single inflected unit of a lexical entry with a single pronunciation, although potentially many orthographies."
Clarify intuitions about "single pronunciation" / different phonetic pronunciations are then different forms?
1 When defining a form, why do we mention "with a single pronunciation"? I think for our purposes it is not that relevant whether we pronounce "privacy" the American or British way. We do not have to represent phonetics. Or maybe I've lost something in the previous calls???
2. When defining ea lexical entry, Is it necessary to say "depending on the requirements of the linguistic context? I'd say that it is clear without the phrase and maybe it adds a bit of "noise" . It seems to add no features really to the proper definition.
Yes, we will drop it.
1. Should we force that every lexical entry has at least (and at most one) canonical form?
Result of discussion: canonical form should not be enforced
2. Should we force that every lexical entry has at least some form?
3. Should every form have one written representation at least?
Yes, one representation will be needed, in fact, we should use only a property representation or writtenRepresentation and make distinctions at the form level, i.e. PhoneticForm, Sign, WrittenForm >=1 card
- I agree we should have both representation and writtenRep in the model John McCrae 12:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Lexical Entry as OWL class or RDF class
It seems a bit confusing that our method for linking to OWL ontologies requires that the Lexical Entry is a subclass of OWL:Class not RDF:Class
Also the axiom needs to be changed to
:LexicalEntry rdfs:subClassOf rdf/owl:Class
John McCrae 12:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Sense is defined after reference
Surely this should be rewritten so that it is the other way around? John McCrae 12:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
More comments from John
"We follow the convention of writing the language codes in lower case and the country codes in upper case." - Why??
"we strongly recommend to follow BCP 47." - What is the point of that? Why can't we make it mandatory!?
Can we move example 3 to the beginning of the section?
Why do we need 3 examples: "cat", "high" and "marry"??
Change section title "Semantics" to "Referencing an ontology"?
Change section title "Sense and Reference" to "Lexical Sense"
rdfs:comment on lexical senses.... is this really something we want to encourage? Should definition be done in the ontology??
What is ontolex:context and why does it take a string object??
Should ontolex:language be an object or datatype property?
"design principle in lemon" => You mean OntoLex, right?
This section should cover non-reified variation first, e.g., ex:FAO ex:isAbbrevationFor ex:Food_and_Agriculture_Organization