Print

Print


Hi Adam,
Would not it be a better recommended practice to make the word  
structure you want explicit and use @copyOf in your example as follows:
                 <w lemma="do">
                     <fs>
                         <!-- desc of this word -->
                     </fs>
                     <w copyOf="tokens.xml#seg3"/>
                     <!-- will -->
                     <w copyOf="tokens.xml#seg4"/>
                     <!-- have -->
                     <w copyOf="tokens.xml#seg5"/>
                     <!-- done -->
                 </w>
Best wishes,
Laurent

Le 29 juil. 09 à 13:44, Adam Przepiorkowski a écrit :

> Dear All,
>
> Some analytical elements, incl. <phr>, allow for <ptr> in their
> content model, but other, e.g., <w>, do not.  Is there a particular
> reason for that?
>
> Best,
>
> Adam P.
>
>
> P.S. The background of this question is that I would like <w>ords at
> one layer of annotation to make stand-off reference to potentially
> smaller token-like units at a different layer, and I envisage typical
> <w> content to look like this:
>
> <w lemma="do">
> <fs> <!-- desc of this word --> </fs>
> <ptr target="tokens.xml#seg3"> <!-- will -->
> <ptr target="tokens.xml#seg4"> <!-- have -->
> <ptr target="tokens.xml#seg5"> <!-- done -->
> </w>
>
> I know I can use <seg type="word"> this way, but why use <seg> when
> the more specific <w> is available?
>
> -- 
> Adam Przepiórkowski                   ˈadam ˌpʃɛpjurˈkɔfskʲi
> http://nlp.ipipan.waw.pl/  ___  Linguistic Engineering Group
> http://korpus.pl/  _____________   IPI PAN  Corpus of Polish
> http://nkjp.pl/  _________________ National Corpus of Polish