Re: conflating gender etc, into part of speech
Okay, I donât like all this âconflatingâ, it seems like a hack to me that is not really necessary.
Another option would be to have a more generic âlabelâ type and (optionally) use a controlled vocabulary to tell us what kind of label it is: part of speech or gender or whatever. That would still allow conflating but would also allow ânot-conflatingâ.
In fact, our sense-level usage labels do this already, so for consistency we should probably do it for our entry-level grammar labels too.
Re: collocations
Yeah, but as you see we often get full sentences as âcollocationsâ and in many dictionaries the definitions rely significantly on context.
That Irish-English dictonary youâre looking at (Ã DÃnaillâs FGB from 1977) is exceptional in that it makes no clear distinction between collocations and example sentences and other kinds of multiword units that appear inside the articles. The bold/italic type is not a consistent guide either. I know this dictionary well, I had a hand in its retrodigitization a while back. :-) If somebody wanted to convert FGB into DMLex I would advise them to either treat all those things as example sentences, or else to manually decide for each one whether or not it deserves to be its own (sub)entry. And either way, this dictionary is on the periphery of Lexidmaâs interests because itâs an old paper one. I get the impression that modern born-digital dictionaries tend to be more clear on whether something is or isnât a (sub)entry.
A simple solution would be to just have a single Relation object and use the controlled vocabulary model to define the types of relations?
Thatâs doable, yes. But still, I think we need separate Relation subtypes depending on their arity and directionality. Like, a synonymy relation can have two or more participants and is undirected, an antonymy relation must have exactly two participants and is also undirected, a hyperym/hyponym relation has two participants and is directed.
M.
Ãt 12. 10. 2021 vÂ14:48 odesÃlatel John McCrae <> napsal:
Hi Michal,
Thanks.
On 12/10/2021 10:42, Michal MÄchura
wrote:
We have no way to
represent fine-grained morphosyntactic information,
including gender of nouns and categories of inflections.
For example the annotation on this entry and its inflected
form âboiseâ
For gender (and
other properties) of nouns (and other word classes) the idea
is that implementers would conflate them with part-of-speech
labels: they would create a âmasculine nounâ part-of-speech
label, a âfeminine nounâ part-of-speech label, and so on.
For inflection
categories, for example to say that this noun belongs in
such-and-such inflectional paradigm, there my suggestion
would again be to conflate this with the part-of-speech
label, for example âfeminine noun of the second declensionâ.
Note that in DMLex,
implementers can use the Controlled Vocabularies module to
tell the world what their home-baked part-of-speech labels
map to in some external data category ontology, for example
to LexInfo.
For inflected forms,
thatâs what the InflectedForm
object type is for (but no tildas please).
Okay, I don't like all this 'conflating', it seems like a hack to me
that is not really necessary.
We cannot give
citations for sources of information, as is typical in
historical dictionaries (see image)
True. This would be
a good candidate for a module.
There is no
etymology information (as discussed in the call). See
example in Merriam-Webster:
True again, and
again itâs a candidate for a module.
Okay, I will try to make some pull requests for candidate modules.
I am not sure how
we intend to implement collocations (see example in
FoclÃir Gaeilge-BÃarla)
My idea was that
each collocation would be treated as an entry (with the
full-form collocation as its headword, for example âlÃn
boiseâ), and this entry would be connected to its âmotherâ
entry through SubentryRelation.
To my mind, this is
the only reasonable way to handle collocations if we want to
avoid embedded subentries and headword overriding (see my
report on subentrying earlier in Lexidma and also my
presentation on recursion at eLex recently).
Yeah, but as you see we often get full sentences as 'collocations'
and in many dictionaries the definitions rely significantly on
context. I think the solution above may work, but we should
certainly try it on some real dictionary data to see how practical
it is.
No modelling for
hypernym relations
I was thinking most
lexicographers would be happy enough to model hypernymy and
hyponymy through SimilarityRelation
in the Crossreferencing module. But, by all means, feel free
to propose a more detailed inventory of relation types for
this module if you want.
I think that the distinction between synonyms and hypernyms is
quite important and few dictionaries would like to conflate these.
A simple solution would be to just have a single Relation object
and use the controlled vocabulary model to define the types of
relations?
On a general note,
Iâm sure people from both inside and outside Lexidma will
have a lot of questions like these; how do I handle nound
gender in DMLex, how do I handle collocations in DMLex, and
so on. The standard itself is probably not the right place
to answer them. So, perhaps we should think about producing
some sort of a âcookbookâ to go with the standard as an
additional, less formal guide to implementing DMLex.
I agree. Examples will need to be documented somewhere.
Regards,
John
M.
