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

Re: Next Ontolex Meeting, tomorrow, Feb 22, 12:00

From: Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 11:18:07 +0100
Message-ID: <CANzuSaORYLcfbMb4MAS8kp7rHX67nZc09AEkoHUHpQOaPnA0qQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>
Cc: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>, Guadalupe Aguado <gac280771@gmail.com>, public-ontolex@w3.org
Dear all,

I agree with the idea of aligning to SKOS-XL (for all the reasons
already stated in this thread). I am also in favour of reusing EDOAL
language for mappings. Nevertheless EDOAL vocabulary is not
dereferenceable as far as I know, so there would be not strict
adherence to the LD principles.

Regards,
Jorge

2013/2/21 Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>:
> Hi, tomorrow I have a flight at due time (last minute change), then regrets.
> Concerning SKOS and Ontolex, I wanted to suggest some kind of vocabualry
> alignment to SKOS-XL, which is definitely useful, as well a more strict
> commitment to the mapping vocabulary of SKOS, in absence of anything better.
> Concerning the first, subclassing is a good idea, since SKOS is
> substantially ignorant (=neutral) on what kind of concepts/expressions it
> commits to.
> Concerning the second, we might either reuse the mapping relations directly,
> or subpropertying new ones, which might catch more nuances in linguistic
> mappings.
> However, there is an additional requirement that I forgot to mention, i.e.
> the need to represent confidence for a mapping. The patterns here include at
> least:
>
> 1) annotating the relation with a confidence value (via RDF reification or
> OWL axiom annotation)
> 2) creating a Mapping class with appropriate relations to mapped entities,
> confidence, and eventually provenance, algorithm if any, etc.
>
> The first pattern enables to reuse SKOS-based triples by annotating them.
> The second has been formalized in an ad-hoc vocabulary by François Scharffe
> and Jerome Euzenat for the AlignmentAPI in the NeOn project. Now it has
> evolved as EDOAL [1], and is quite a rich language, which is optimized for
> ontology matching data. However, its edoal:Cell element has the features
> that I'm describing. I suggest to reuse it, or at least to align to it.
>
> Ciao
> Aldo
>
> [1] http://alignapi.gforge.inria.fr/format.html
>
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:23:24 PM , Philipp Cimiano
> <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>
> Dear Armando,
>
> ok, thanks for letting us know.
>
> Concerning SKOS-XL: yes, we should check whether we can align to it somehow.
> On the subclassing idea: this would mean that for instance lemon:Sense would
> be a subclass of skos:Concept and lemon:LexicalEntry a subclass of
> skosxl:Label?
>
> I do not see really other alternatives really. We have to think about
> whether this is what we want?
>
> In general: are there any arguments why we should consider aligning to SKOS
> / SKOS-XL?
>
> Philipp.
>
> Am 21.02.13 12:25, schrieb Armando Stellato:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> I’m sorry I cannot attend too. The one-week shift collided with student
> exams I set in advance for that date.
>
> However, in the previous days I added more info on:
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Metadata#Metadata_about_RDF_Linguistic_Resources
>
>
>
> and defined two sets of metadata (one for Lexical Nets, and one for
> ontologies enriched with linguistic info). Plus, I reported on my thoughts
> (and discussions with other people) regarding the subjects of these
> metadata. More to come in the following days.
>
>
>
> Finally, getting back to a previous msg from Aldo about
> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Linked_Data,
> and his observations about SKOS. I think it is important to understand if
> and how SKOS (and SKOS-XL) may be reused in this modeling.
>
> SKOS concepts may provide the conceptual backbone of lexical resources (e.g.
> synsets in wordnet), while reified labels coming from SKOS-XL may allow for
> the specification of lexical relationships. Thus, while sitting on top of
> the SKOS-XL skeleton, this could be only a:
>
> 1)      Subclassing work: e.g. define Senses, Lexical Entry etc… as specific
> subclasses of SKOS(XL) elements.
>
> 2)      Instantiation:  e.g. A vocabulary of reusable, shareable, lexical
> relationships.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Armando
>
>
>
> From: Guadalupe Aguado [mailto:gac280771@gmail.com]
> Sent: giovedì 21 febbraio 2013 09.30
> To: Philipp Cimiano
> Cc: public-ontolex@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Next Ontolex Meeting, tomorrow, Feb 22, 12:00
>
>
>
> Dear Philipp
>
> I'm afraid I won't be able to attend the meeting, as I'll be in a doctoral
> thesis board.
>
> Elena will attend the meeting.
>
> Best regards
>
> Lupe
>
>
>
> 2013/2/21 Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
>
> Dear all,
>
>  this is to inform you that tomorrow we will have our regular ontolex
> teleconference.
>
> We will continue our discussion of particular examples, in particular
> looking at the contributions here:
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Lexicon-Ontology-Mapping
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements_on_Terminological_Analysis
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Properties-and-Relations-of-Entries
>
> Paul/Mihael: I do not see any RDF examples in the wiki yet, will you manage
> to work them out until tomorrow?
>
> Elena/Lupe: same for you, I do not see any RDF examples in the wiki yet
>
> John: you wanted to work out how to represent Lexical Nets* in lemon, with
> WordNet as an example; can you please provide some RDF code for this?
>
>>>From then on, I would discuss how to i) model lexico-syntactic patterns
>> (Dagmar: are you going to be there?) and ii) how to link entries across
>> resources. We could start with Framenet / Verbnet for example, then showing
>> how they can be used within a lemon lexical entry. Linking to wiktionary
>> could be also considered as well as to ISOCAT.
>
> Another issue will be to look at modelling terminological resources in the
> lexicon-ontology model.
>
> Thanks to everybody. We have to get concrete and produce some (draft of a)
> spec this year ;-)
>
> 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
>
>



-- 
Jorge Gracia, PhD
Ontology Engineering Group
Artificial Intelligence Department
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~jgracia/
Received on Friday, 22 February 2013 10:18:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 February 2013 10:18:52 GMT