RE: Summary of teleconference last Friday

Hi Philipp, 

Thank you for modifying the LSP requirements and even more for the new requirement on term analysis. 

Best,
Dagmar 
________________________________________
From: Philipp Cimiano [cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de]
Sent: 24 November 2012 23:25
To: public-ontolex@w3.org
Subject: Summary of teleconference last Friday

Dear all,

  here is a brief summary of our telco last Friday together with action
points for our next telco on Dez. 7th at the usual time, 15:00 (CET).

We discussed the following requirements:

1) Express meaning with respect to ontology:
http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Lexicon-Ontology-Mapping

We generally agreed on the formulation of the requirement. However, Aldo
mentioned that the view of the sense as merely a reification might be to
restrictive.  I propose we define a sense as a "linguistic sign"
representing the disambiguated meaning of a lexical entry when
interpreted as a given concept c. Technically, the sense object that
stands for this disambiguated sense also reifies the relation between
the lexical entry and the concept in question.

Would that be fine?

2)  Valence and high-order mapping:
http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Lexicon-Ontology-Mapping

We had a first discussion of the main issues raised by John in the text.
One of the main questions is whether subcategorized arguments are
identified through grammatical functions or through semantic roles.

My intuition is that the semantic of the roles played by grammatical
functions in a specific construction will be in the ontology, so there
is no need to have semantic/thematic roles attached to syntactic arguments.

Action Point: Philipp and John to start a discussion

3) Lexico-syntactic patterns:
http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Lexico-Syntactic_Patterns

We had quite a long discussion on this requirement.

Dagmar: would you be ok if I try to rework the text and provide a
version of the req. that we can agree upon on Dec. 7th?

Action Point: Philipp to modify requirement

All: I propose that we create a separate requirement on term analysis,
would that be fine?

Action Point: Philipp to create new requirement on term analysis

Please let me know your comments.

Have a good weekend!

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



Received on Sunday, 25 November 2012 15:31:32 UTC