- From: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 00:58:14 +0100
- To: <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
- Cc: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@gmail.com>, "'Aldo Gangemi'" <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>, "'Philipp Cimiano'" <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Hi Armando, I think any contribution from within the community group is welcome :) On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:31:16 PM , "Armando Stellato" <stellato@info.uniroma2.it> wrote: > 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 23:58:44 UTC