search

globalwordnet / schemas

WordNet-LMF formats
https://globalwordnet.github.io/schemas/
20 stars 11 forks source link

pertainym #51

Closed arademaker closed 3 years ago

arademaker commented 3 years ago

In https://globalwordnet.github.io/schemas/ we have the

The set of relations between senses is limited to the following

  1. pertainym: A relational adjective. Adjectives that are pertainyms are usually defined by such phrases as “of or pertaining to” and do not have antonyms. A pertainym can point to a noun or another pertainym

Non-Princeton WordNet Relations:

  1. pertainym: usually an adjective, which can be defined as “of or pertaining to” another word.

In the DTDs:

  1. https://github.com/globalwordnet/schemas/blob/master/WN-LMF-relaxed-1.0.dtd#L195
  2. https://github.com/globalwordnet/schemas/blob/master/WN-LMF-relaxed-1.1.dtd#L206

From https://globalwordnet.github.io/gwadoc/#pertainym, I got that this is the \ in the PWN https://wordnet.princeton.edu/documentation/wninput5wn.

So in conclusion, the page https://globalwordnet.github.io/schemas/ listed twice the same relation as two different relations but they are the same one, right?

jmccrae commented 3 years ago

It is both a sense and a synset relation. The synset usage of pertainym is beyond the usage in Princeton WordNet.

arademaker commented 3 years ago

I believe this issue should be closed only after we improve the documentation... Yes, I know that Princeton used it as sense relation. But using the same name is confusing. What is the expected interpretation? DTDs declare pertainym as sense relation. But feel free to close again if you feel there is nothing to do here.

arademaker commented 3 years ago

Let me put it in other words. The Non-Princeton WordNet Relations can be used in an XML? How? The DTDs do not list the pertainym as one possible relation between synsets.

goodmami commented 3 years ago

I don't have an opinion on whether using the same name is confusing, but for documentation I wonder if gwadoc is a better place for such historical notes?

The DTDs do not list the pertainym as one possible relation between synsets.

That's true. The Wn library does not allow pertainym between synsets because it's not in the DTD. Should it be there?

jmccrae commented 3 years ago

Right, the documentation is incorrect pertainym isn't a synset relation