I am writing for advice, on or off list, about revising a feature structure system for morphological markup. I have a bunch of questions (including the structure of a stand-alone features document), but for the moment, my I want to ask about the role of fvLib and fLib. Below are two sets of examples, one from the ISO spec for MAF  illustrating how this could be done in compliance with TEI; the other is from a recent article in jTEI.
On the model in Example 1, the fvLib seems to create a list of name/atomic value pairs that is then reused. The feature library itself only lists values relevant to (French) nouns, but is a generic enough listing that it has masc and fem, singular and plural. From an example that precedes this, it is the fLib values (i.e., #pos.n, not #noun) in the analysis. Why is this not unnecessary duplication? Does fvLib give "available" values, and fLib give their "applied" use?
In Example 2, the model seems to be the reverse: fLib creates a list of atomic values and fvLib possible morphological combinations, that are then reused on @ana in <form>. Am I missing something here? Is Example 2 just creating the name-symbol pairs in the feature definitions themselves and skipping the step of a fvLib?
Featureless, near Washington DC,
<fvLib n="French morpho values">
 ISO TC37/SC4–related MAF (Morphosyntactic Annotation Framework)
 http://journals.openedition.org/jtei/522#tocto3n2 at paragraph 41
From what I can see in your example, one could think of fvLib and
fLib roughly as you suggested, with the former containing e.g.
values defined by the grammatical system of the given language,
and the latter being basically shortcuts. One could also imagine
fvLib being logically composite, containing complex feature values
defined by referencing multiple atomic values (contained in other,
simpler, fvLibs). This is not only heavily language-dependent but
also theory- and application-dependent. (Or maybe instead of
"application", I should say "use case", as in when someone decides
to encode the full extent of a feature-geometric, hierarchical
system, separating the atomic values, then encoding their possible
compositions, and so on, and then linking them together with their
"containers" in an fLib -- it's doable, given enough years and
sometimes some scripting language, but not a task for the weak of
heart, unless the system to be described is ultra-simple). And one
could devilishly also throw DCR attributes (att.datcat) into the
mix, for the purpose anchoring labels such as "noun" or "Subst" in
a single node of some agreed attribute|value ontology/taxonomy.
-- I'm trying not to imagine the full-blown representation of this on the one hand, but on the other, such an approach can also be useful when coupled with a closed-world assumption that only the values listed in this way are legitimate combinations of POS+morphosyntactic features for the given language.
Does this help in any way? My point is also to say that it is conceivable that for your use case and your assumed model of grammar, mimicking this solution in full might legitimately be considered overkill -- maybe that's what made you wonder.
On 02/12/18 20:15, Hayim Lapin wrote:
-- Piotr Bański, Ph.D. Senior Researcher, Institut für Deutsche Sprache, R5 6-13 68-161 Mannheim, Germany
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|