kobac
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:18 pm Post subject: Questions/Remarks about the Tags : disjointenesses |
 |
|
As I work with the OWL web ontology language, and as tags are unary relations, I represent tags as Classes that the NL lexical item may belong to. OWL offers some extra models that would be interesting here.
A. the disjointUnionOf constructor: asserting that the ABN Class (abstractness) is the disjointUnionOf the ABT Class (abstract) and the CCT Class (concrete) means that if any NL lexical item belongs to the ABT class, then it belongs to the ABN class, and does not belong to the CCT class. If a NL lexical item belongs to the ABN class, then it belongs to one and only on of the classes ABT and CCT. It will be a lot easier to reason with XUNL if we use disjointUntionOf as often as we can.
a. I tried to use this disjointUnionOf constructor as much as possible, but I would like you to confirm my choices, and to tell me if there is any extra class that could use this constructor. I used it for the following classes : ABN ; AJC ; ALY ; ANI ; ASP ; ASP>NPFV ; ASP>PFC ; CAR ; CAS ; DFN ; DEG ; DIS ; GEN ; LST ; MOO ; MOR ; MOR>AFF ; NUM ; POS ; POS>J ; POS>P ; POS>A ; POS>I ; POS>C ; POS>C>SCJ ; POS>D ; POS>N ; POS>U ; POS>R ; POS>V ; POS>VBL ; PER ; POL ; REG ; SEM ; SOD>SOL ; SOD>STS ; SYN ; SYN>XA ; SYN>XC ; SYN>XH ; XYN>XS ; SYN>XP ; SYN>XB ; TNS ; TNS>ATE ; TNS>ATE>PAS ; TNS>ATE>FUT ; TNS>RTE ; TRA ; TRA>TST ; TRA>NTST ; VAL ; VOI. For example I am not sure that it was a good idea to use this constructor for the SEM class.
b. LST>WRD>ABB : I guess that it is possible for a NL lexical item to be WRD and not to be ABB, so I suggest to add a new tag under WRD, to represent any simple word that is not an abbreviation.
LST>MTW>ACR&CTT : I guess that it is possible for a NL lexical item to be MTW and not to be ACR nor CTT, so I suggest to add a new tag under MTW, to represent any multiword expression that is not an acronym nor a multiple-word contraction and blend.
c. ASP>NPFV>CTN>PGS : Is it possible for a NL lexical item to be CTN and not to be PGS ? If yes, I suggest to add this possibility as a new class. If not, then COO and CRC are equivalent, so we could merge those two equivalent classes.
NUM>SNG>SNGT : idem
POS>C>COO>CRC : idem
POS>V>AUX>MOV : idem
NUM>PLR>DUA&TRI&QDR&PAU&MUL&PLRT : Is it possible for a NL lexical item to be PLR and not to be any of PLR's subclasses ? If yes, I suggest to add this possibility as a new class. If not, then may I use the disjointUnionOf constructor for NUM>PLR ?
d. POS>PUT>BLK : I don't really understand what is the need for this tag. maybe we shall also put parenthesis, the exclamation mark, the @ character, and so on ?
B. the unionOf constructor: is a less strict constructor that relaxes the disjointness assertion between subclasses. I used this constructor for other classes.
C. One special tag was AGR, I only asserted that ACAS is disjoint with RCAS, AGEN is disjoint with RGEN etc...
Regards,
Maxime Lefranois |
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups 
Profile 
