search

DARIAH-ERIC / lexicalresources

Data space of the DARIAH Lexical Resources Working Group
https://dariah-eric.github.io/lexicalresources/
BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" License
18 stars 24 forks source link

add value to xr type to indicate inclusion of external material #64

Closed ttasovac closed 4 years ago

ttasovac commented 4 years ago

I'm just parking this here — we need this because of the way we deal with in the context of pointing to the lemma in collocations etc.

laurentromary commented 4 years ago

e.g. (value to be discussed) <xr type='include'/>

laurentromary commented 4 years ago

This would cover cases (à la oRef ;-)) where we refer (with the semantics of 'import') a lemma from another (possibly local) entry and have a <lbl/>, e.g. (from Portuguese dictionary): <xr type='include><lbl>+</lbl><ref type='lemma' scope='currentEntry'/></xr>'

ambs commented 4 years ago

I would leave the label alone and remove it. That can be changed to whatever we want during output processing. For instance, in a paper dictionary, the + might be a good way to save some space. For an electronic dictionary, I would have the lemma itself being shown.

Also, entries might have more than one lemma/orth form. We should use an id in the entry we want to refer to (probably in the orth where the desired lemma is) and here we just refer that specific id (no need to specify the scope). Also, this is the correct way to create cross references in XML.

ttasovac commented 4 years ago

The proper way to refer to an xml:id is to put a target attribute on ref — so we're in agreement there, it's important to be able to point to an id.

We just want to make sure that we have a way of modeling the plus or the tilde or whatever lbl is used in a print dictionary. Remember, not everybody is "updating" their dictionaries when they go digital, sometimes the goal is to model as closely as possible what you have on paper.

I posted this just as a placeholder after speaking to Laurent, I don't have the time to go into detail right now, but I will post examples and full elaboration later on.

ttasovac commented 4 years ago

One additional clarification. Our current typology of cross-references has lexical relations (synonymy, antonymy, hypernymy etc.) and a catch-all "related". But what we are suggesting here is that we should have an additional value for a cross-reference which is not about going somewhere else, but including something else from somewhere else...