Re: Welcome to Community Group on Ontology-Lexica

Armando,

    concering the report on "what we already have in OWL/SKOS/SKOS-XL 
and we consider not enough for reasons: x,y, z".

I think we definitely need this, but I have in mind a more systematic 
approach to arrive at those.

My proposal would be to start from concrete use cases. Once they are 
finished and we release a use case spec. we can move to defining 
requirements on the model to according to the use cases defined. Then we 
can check whether extant models (OWL/SKOS/SKOS-XL) satisfy these 
requirements. Would this not be a systematic way of proceeding?

What do you think?

What do others think about this process?

Best regards,

Philipp.

Am 19.10.11 16:34, schrieb Armando Stellato:
> Dear Philipp,
>
> sure, I read them just after sending the past email and found them very
> clear and exhaustive (and also widened my idea of the scope and expected
> outcomes of this CG which I got previously from [1]).
> I plan to add at least one other in the next few days about language
> supported mediation.
> One question: is there any section we could add for reporting "what we
> already have in OWL/SKOS/SKOSXL and we consider not enough for reasons: x,
> y, z" ?
> I mean something which is not a use case but which is quite understandable
> as a modeling issue, and so we would like to see in the next version.
> Dunno if we could write it directly to the Requirements section...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Armando
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Philipp Cimiano [mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 3:34 PM
>> To: Armando Stellato
>> Cc: public-ontolex@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Welcome to Community Group on Ontology-Lexica
>>
>> Armando,
>>
>>    thanks for the introduction. This is indeed very interesting and
>> relevant. It looks like a good opportunity to exploit the connection to
>> FAO to come
>> up with interesting and realistic use cases for the CG.
>>
>> Have you looked at the use cases on the website so far? Do you have any
>> comments on them or any proposals for other use cases from your
>> experience with FAO or other projects?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Philipp.
>>
>> Am 19.10.11 15:27, schrieb Armando Stellato:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I'm a post-doctoral researcher at the Artificial Intelligence
>> Research Group
>>> of the University of Rome Tor Vergata. My Phd thesis was on "
>> Alignment and
>>> Mediation of Distributed Information Sources in the Semantic Web" and
>> based
>>> on the hypothesis that shareability and integration should be
>> supported from
>>> the early development stage of ontologies, when "linguistically
>> motivated"
>>> conceptual resources can better explain themselves both for machines
>> (more
>>> linguistic anchors -->   easier automatic matching/mapping) and humans
>>> (informal lexical descriptions help to restrict the range of
>> interpretations
>>> given by humans even beyond those imposed by the formal
>> restrictions).
>>> I'm also consultant for the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
>> of the
>>> United Nations, and actively working on:
>>> 1) porting to Linked Open Data of their vocabularies and thesauri
>> (AGROVOC,
>>> BIOTECH) and data, moving to RDF from their legacy models. The last
>> SKOS-XL
>>> incarnation of AGROVOC is currently on the LOD Cloud
>>> 2) supporting development of Collaborative (Multilingual) Thesauri
>> Editing
>>> tools
>>>
>>> In my research and work, I've "felt" need for more elaborated onto-
>> lexica
>>> standards and inadequateness of current standards from many
>> perspectives. In
>>> particular, to give one which has not always been underlined:
>>>   From an engineering point, we need ways to easily reuse the many
>> different
>>> existing lexical resource models and to be able to cover them under a
>>> unifying umbrella.
>>> Ontology Developers should get tools capable of easily importing
>> information
>>> from arbitrary lexical resources and be able to link their resources
>> to
>>> these lexical entries, from mere words, which may "lose contact" with
>> the
>>> resource they come from, to other identifiers which may need to
>> preserve
>>> their original nature, such as synsets for wordnet. While the idea of
>> using
>>> wordnet-synsets (just an example) as an interlingua may be fool,
>> surely two
>>> ontologies explicitly linked through these identifiers may rely on a
>> less
>>> ambiguous common (sill linguistic) ground for communicating.
>>> To avoid confusion: this does not cover the realization of a new
>> lexicon
>>> model (which, following [1], is out of the scope of this WG) but of a
>> proper
>>> onto-linguistic interface covering issues such as:
>>> 1) proper wrapping (least possible information loss) of existing
>> resources
>>> 2) linking conceptual resources (OWL, SKOS ones) to them
>>> and the standardization of vocabularies for making these wraps/links
>>> official.
>>> Some of my works [2, inside that, pointers to previous ones] are
>> related to
>>> the above aspects.
>>>
>>> The work with FAO can possibly provide test scenarios, and I would be
>>> tempted to provide the first release of a widely known resource such
>> as
>>> AGROVOC by remodeling it according to the very last model for onto-
>> lexica
>>> integration and, most of all, to support development for this
>> language
>>> through FAO and TorVergata tools (see vocbench [3] and Semantic
>> Turkey [4])
>>> In our experience, SKOS (and in particular, the SKOS-XL extension
>> foreseeing
>>> reified labels) has satisfied many of our requirements, though I
>> still feel
>>> unsatisfied about a few aspects which still seem to diminish the
>> linguistic
>>> relevance in knowledge modeling (no details here, time for discussion
>> in the
>>> future :-) ).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Armando Stellato
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Goals_and_Scope_of_Ontology-
>> Lexica_
>>> Community_Group (section Scope)
>>>
>>> [2] Maria Teresa Pazienza, Armando Stellato, Andrea Turbati
>> Linguistic
>>> Watermark 3.0: an RDF framework and a software library for bridging
>> language
>>> and ontologies in the Semantic Web. Semantic Web Applications and
>>> Perspectives, 5th Italian Semantic Web Workshop (SWAP2008) FAO-UN,
>> Rome,
>>> Italy, 15-17 December, 2008
>>>
>> http://art.uniroma2.it/publications/docs/2008_SWAP2008_LinguisticWaterm
>> ark3.
>>> 0.pdf
>>>
>>> [3] http://aims.fao.org/tools/vocbench-2
>>>
>>> [4] http://semanticturkey.uniroma2.it/
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: public-ontolex-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ontolex-
>>>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Philipp Cimiano
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 8:42 AM
>>>> To: public-ontolex@w3.org
>>>> Subject: Welcome to Community Group on Ontology-Lexica
>>>>
>>>> Dear members of the Ontology-Lexica Community Group (resending this
>>>> email with an appropriate Subject),
>>>>
>>>> First of all, the chairs would like to welcome to everybody on this
>>>> list. We have by now 29 members in the group, which is very nice. I
>>>> think it would be nice if everybody could write a brief email
>>>> introducing themselves and mentioning sth. about their background,
>> what
>>>> they are working on and why they are interested in this group. This
>>>> would help everybody to get a feeling for the members of the group.
>>>>
>>>> Further, we have started to produce some preliminary material for
>> the
>>>> group. As you know, there is a wiki (MediaWiki) that we can all use
>> to
>>>> work together.
>>>>
>>>> i) You will find the statement of the mission of the group here:
>>>>
>> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Goals_and_Scope_of_Ontology-
>>>> Lexica_Community_Group
>>>>
>>>> ii) You will find a proposal for a schedule that we can use to
>>>> structure
>>>> our work. This needs to be thoroughly discussed at one of our first
>>>> telcos. The proposal of the chairs and other involved people is to
>>>> start
>>>> defining use cases from which we can derive requirements on the
>> model
>>>> later. I think this is a very pragmatic way of kicking of the work
>> that
>>>> will help us to stay focused and concrete.
>>>>
>>>> iii) We have already added a few use cases that I think are relevant
>>>> and
>>>> that the ontology-lexicon model should support:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Use_Cases;
>>>> comments are of course welcome. If you have comments on the format
>> of
>>>> the use case descriptions, please let me know. I think it is
>> important
>>>> that we have some common format for these use case descriptions and
>> I
>>>> do
>>>> think that it is important to make these use cases as concrete as
>>>> possible (also with concrete examples) to facilitate discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Our plan is to have a first teleconference to kick-off the work of
>> this
>>>> group. We will arrange this for end of October/early November at the
>>>> very latest.
>>>>
>>>> In the meantime, I would really appreciate if everybody could
>> introduce
>>>> themselves.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Philipp.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
>>>> Semantic Computing Group
>>>> Excellence Cluster - Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
>>>> University of Bielefeld
>>>>
>>>> Phone: +49 521 106 12249
>>>> Fax: +49 521 106 12412
>>>> Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>>>>
>>>> Room H-127
>>>> Morgenbreede 39
>>>> 33615 Bielefeld
>>
>> --
>> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
>> Semantic Computing Group
>> Excellence Cluster - Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
>> University of Bielefeld
>>
>> Phone: +49 521 106 12249
>> Fax: +49 521 106 12412
>> Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>>
>> Room H-127
>> Morgenbreede 39
>> 33615 Bielefeld
>


-- 
Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
Semantic Computing Group
Excellence Cluster - Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
University of Bielefeld

Phone: +49 521 106 12249
Fax: +49 521 106 12412
Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de

Room H-127
Morgenbreede 39
33615 Bielefeld

Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 21:05:33 UTC