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

RE: next telco and todos

From: Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 17:56:02 +0100
To: "'Philipp Cimiano'" <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, "'Aldo Gangemi'" <aldo.gangemi@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Aldo Gangemi'" <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>, <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001b01ce022f$5af8db20$10ea9160$@info.uniroma2.it>
 
> Dear Armando, Aldo,
> 
>     of course, every contribution in any section is welcome.

Thx!
 
> On what you say: I understand that many resources have been migrated into
> RDF, but one issue I see is that they all use a different vocabulary.
> Would it not be could to have one vocabulary that is general enough to
> represent all these lexical resources? One to bind them all so to speak
;-)

Not sure, but probably here you are addressing Aldo's response. Btw if I got
his answer well, both Aldo and me agree on a binding vocabulary, which may
be used to tie definitions from any resource under our vocabulary. Obviously
a common modeling framework to be used directly in modeling existing
resources is not bad, though in my opinion, I see very easily
rdfs:subClassOf relationships between specific theories and our binding
vocabulary. And then, we can use ontolex properties to bind these elements
to the ontology, thus having a common hat.

For instance, the first triple in:
http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Linke
d_Data
wordnetschema:WordSense owl:equivalentClass ontolex:Sense ;

then, we could say
wn20instances:wordsense-bank-noun-1 ontolex:hasReference  myontology:Bank

thus by using our ontolex vocabulary to bind the wordsense in wordnet to an
entry in the ontology.

Two possible typos found when roaming around our wiki:

In
http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Linke
d_Data
If I'm correct, it is not:	wordnetSchema:Sense, as written there, but:
wordnetschema:WordSense

Also, when looking for which name to use for the property
ontolex:hasReference, I found this sentence:

"The relation between the lexical entry and the ontology element should be
represented by a path involving two object properties relating the lexical
entry to one of its (many) sense and one relating the sense to the
corresponding LEXICAL entry"

At:
http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Lexic
on-Ontology-Mapping

Suppose the correct one is:
"The relation between the lexical entry and the ontology element should be
represented by a path involving two object properties relating the lexical
entry to one of its (many) sense and one relating the sense to the
corresponding ONTOLOGY entry"

---
Finally, one remark on the rels between our binding vocabulary and the
existing vocabularies for lexical resources.

Maybe the owl:equivalentClass stated in the specific case of the example
binding wordnet word senses to ontolex senses, is appropriate, but in
general, a rdfs:subClassOf relation would allow us to obtain the
interoperability we desire, without committing too much to the specific
theories and subtle differences that each specific lexical resource may
expose. This would also be a +1 on seeing the vocabulary more as a binding
knot between resources' vocabularies (even pre-existing ones, such as
Wordnet) than as a basic modeling vocabulary to be used for writing them
from scratch.

Best regards,

Armando
Received on Sunday, 3 February 2013 16:54:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 3 February 2013 16:54:52 GMT