1 / 7

Principles of Lexical Description

Principles of Lexical Description. Workgroup 1, reported by Gary Simons EMELD Workshop on Digitizing Lexical Information , 3-5 August 2002. Roadmap to Best Practice. Reviewed the proposed “Roadmap” document: Questions and discussion to clarify intent and meaning of the document.

marynewman
Download Presentation

Principles of Lexical Description

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Principles of Lexical Description Workgroup 1, reported by Gary SimonsEMELD Workshop on Digitizing Lexical Information, 3-5 August 2002

  2. Roadmap to Best Practice • Reviewed the proposed “Roadmap” document: • Questions and discussion to clarify intent and meaning of the document. • Author made notes of minor editorial changes to make in document. • Group endorsed the principles expressed in the document.

  3. A warning of things to come • Do we really agree with action point 2: “Recommend one or more markup schemas with best practice characteristics”? • Con: Not really possible since every dictionary will be different in the final analysis. • Pro: The average user setting off to begin a project wants an off-the-shelf solution to get started with (including a schema, editor, and stylesheets). • Day 1—Yes!  Day 2—Maybe it’s not so easy. 

  4. Exemplary principles • Reviewed the DTD proposed by Bird & Bell. • Foundational principles we should follow: • Separation of information structure from rendering. • Display order belongs in stylesheet, not DTD. • A:B link in the information structure can be rendered hierarchically as A>B or B>A. • Information within lexical entry as a triple of form, morphosyntax, and sense.

  5. Problems in proposal • <affix> element isn’t quite right. • <note> in the <head> seems odd. Is it really <comment>, as elsewhere? • <orthogrpahicForm> seems an extraneous level in some places and seems to be missing in others. • Not clear how <msi> and <pos> work. • Subentry embedding needs to be <lexeme>* (not ‘?’) or by pointer without embedding. • Subentry should relate to sense, not whole entry. • Defs and comments need xrefs to headwords.

  6. And if we’d had more time ... • <pron> generalizes to <form>, and selecting the headword out of the kinds of forms in <form> is in the stylesheet • <aux> not factored right; <etymology> goes with whole entry but other elements go with senses. • <sense> should be recursive. • Need <definition> as distinct from <gloss>. • Needs to incorporate images and sound.

  7. Conclusions • The Bird & Bell DTD needs more work before we would be ready to endorse it as recommended best practice. • Multiple stylesheets need to be released with a DTD in order to illustrate the separation of information and display. • [It would also be worthwhile to explore what a best practice recommendation based on the TEI tag set (with a stricter DTD) would look like.]

More Related