W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ontolex@w3.org > February 2013

RE: next telco and todos

From: Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 14:31:16 +0100
To: "'Aldo Gangemi'" <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>, "'Philipp Cimiano'" <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Cc: <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003c01ce0149$95ce78e0$c16b6aa0$@info.uniroma2.it>
Dear all,

> Anyway, I had previously updated the requirements for lexical resources,
so
> John, if you want to discuss my updates let's do it on the list.
> As I said last time, we shouldn't concentrate in representing WordNet or
any
> other specific resource: fo rmany of them, work has been done and we do
not
> need to redo it again.
> However, we need to abstract from the requirements coming those resources
> in order to make them as interoperable as possible without unnecessary
> complexity.
> Aldo

May I contribute to that req or the wiki is intended for the main
investigators of each requirement section? (maybe in the section discussion
of the page?). I had some ideas about interoperability, in the spirit of:
http://art.uniroma2.it/software/LinguisticWatermark/images/LinguisticWaterma
rk-id.gif
http://art.uniroma2.it/publications/docs/2008_SWAP2008_LinguisticWatermark3.
0.pdf

surely they can be modeled better (supporting linguistic interoperability in
software tools was the aim there, and no a rigorous lexical model), but I
think that is the thing Aldo is hinting to, too.

Cheers,

Armando

P.S. In any case I'll be off for 3 days due to a project final meeting, but
can go over it on Friday or the following week
Received on Saturday, 2 February 2013 13:30:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 2 February 2013 13:30:07 GMT