The English Polish freedict example above doesn't seem to me to establish a particularly good precedent. If you were doing this project again, surely you'd use DCR ("data category registry", Kevin) pointers instead?
<list n="values" type="bulleted">
<item xml:id="tag_N" ana="FreeDict_ontology.xml#f_pos_noun">N</item>
<item ana="FreeDict_ontology.xml#f_pos_noun">N Comp</item>
<item xml:id="tag_V" ana="FreeDict_ontology.xml#f_pos_verb">V</item>
<item ana="FreeDict_ontology.xml#f_pos_verb">V Mod</item>
<item ana="FreeDict_ontology.xml#f_pos_verb">V Phras</item>
Why do some entries have xml:id values but not others?
Why is the list of type "bulleted" rather than (say) "valueList" ?
The Guidelines suggest instead storing your POS values as <category> elements within a <taxonomy>. (maybe we should add <category> to att.datcat)
In any case, I can see the logic of defining these things here. So now we have three possibilities: document them with a <valList> inside your ODD; document them with a <taxonomy> in your corpus header; document them inside <tagUsage> inside your header. Oh, and then there's the possibility of that new other special element for <standoff> too...
Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:
You seem to have CSS turned off.
Please don't fill out this field.