Re: [ontolex] core module, couple of doubts

John, all,

Yes, this is also what we agreed upon in yesterday's telco.

Cheers,

Philipp

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 19.10.2013 um 06:19 schrieb "John P. McCrae" <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>:

> Hi Jorge,
> 
> The first issue has already been discussed: glosses will be something that can be defined on the lexical sense and a module will define the exact property for this.
> 
> As for the imports, I think you may be right that we shouldn't import SKOS and Semiotics.owl as we are not actually building on top of these ontologies but merely stating equivalences, just linking by URIs should suffice
> 
> Regards,
> John
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> I'll try to summarise a couple of doubts I have about the
>> lemon-ontolex core module:
>> 
>> 1. What if we have to support long descriptions? In principle lemon
>> supports lexical entries (which can be compound words), but what about
>> long descriptions? i.e., things that typically come in rdfs:comment.
>> Where is the limit, btw? Now I am thinking on terms that do not have a
>> proper translation into another language and a description is used
>> instead. For instance, "gazpacho"@es -> "tomato-based, vegetable soup,
>> traditionally served cold, originating in the southern Spanish region
>> of Andalucia"@en. Can we represent this as a (long) written
>> representation of a lexical entry? Otherwise, what is the solution?
>> 
>> 2. I inspected the owl file for the core model and I see these imports:
>> 
>> Import: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core>
>> Import: <http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/semiotics.owl>
>> 
>> Are they really needed? Can't we just put them as prefixes, i.e.,
>> linking them without importing them?
>> Actually, I assume that when the "linking module" is ready the links
>> to semiotics/skos existent now in the core will be moved there, right?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Jorge
>