Referring to the definition for tei:w at

The definitions of @lemma and @lemmaRef seem to imply:
(a) that @lemma and @lemmaRef differ by something other than the 
location of the lemma; one is uninflected form, one is a root.
(b) that words can only have a single uninflected form or root. The best 
European counter-examples I can think of are long German compound nouns 
and Welsh placenames, both of which use concatenation to form 
multi-rooted words. Māori appears similar to Welsh in this regard.

Surely those are both mistakes?

I'll admit that I may have the wrong end of the stick, because my 
linguistics aren't what they might be and @lemmaRef isn't mentioned in 
the body of the standard and only has a single example in the definition.

Stuart Yeates       New Zealand Electronic Text Centre     Institutional Repository