about Lexical Linked Data and notable lexical resources

Hi all,

 

Today, following the finalization of the core module, the agenda was quite
dynamic, with some core points (e.g. name of the vocabulary, assessing the
list of modules to be developed etc..) and time for raising new issues or
retrieving open ones.

 

I remember that one thing left appended (or at least, I recall hearing
different opinions on the matter) was:

 

"notable resources, like WordNet and FrameNet": should we only map them, or
should we make a new version, possibly with direct references to the
OntoLex1 vocabulary?

 

There are pro and contra for both approaches. 

-          PRO-Keep: Solidity of the existing versions: for instance, as
Aldo says about Wordnet: "it's already out there under the W3C umbrella", so
better not to change anything carved into stone (though it's still in
working draft am I right?)

-          PRO-Change: Promotion of OntoLex: one thing is to have a mapping
module telling how WordNet/Framenet is seen from an Ontolex perspective, one
thing is to express WordNet/Framenet in terms of Ontolex directly inside the
WordNet/Framenet resource. People accessing these resources will know about
Ontolex.

-          PRO-Keep: even from a barely terminological point of view, it is
important to keep the original descriptors from these resources and
transpose them into RDF. e.g. a WordNet synset is a kind of
ontolex:LexicalConcept; ontolex:LexicalConcept guarantess interoperability
and tells how to "attach" wordnet descriptors to ontology by using ontolex
vocabulary, nonetheless, it is important to provide a "Synset" class
specific to WordNet to make it clear to WordNet users what those objects are
by means of the WordNet terminology.

-          PRO-Change: despite the above is true, still whenever possible, a
direct use of Ontolex constructs would make resources more explicitly
"connected" and their reuse more "evident" in terms of Ontolex principles

-          .and so on.

 

Now, we had interesting feedback from Piek Vossen (EuroWordNet) and other
people involved in the development of these resources, and also comments and
wishes about changes wrt existing versions (I recall one about URI namings
for WordNet synsets, for instance).

 

I imagine also that there are viable "grey" hypotheses, laying in the
middle, like providing new versions of these resources (e.g. a WordNet 3.0
RDF porting, whereas the current one is 2.0) which, while not "breaking" any
already-defined construct, could still embed these mappings to OntoLex,
bring some strongly required change, etc., while not "betraying" its
original nature (so, just an update and not a rewriting.)

 

So, the question is:

 

Leave everything as it is, and provide mappings in our OntoLex world, or try
to maximize the awareness of Ontolex directly "at the source of the
resources", possibly (re)working them as much as necessary ?

.or any anything in the middle.case by case.

 

Waiting for feedback :)

 

Armando

 

P.S: I made all examples about WordNet, as I'm not proficient enough for
providing detailed examples about FrameNet, VerbNet, or other pertinent
resources..

 

1.       I used the name OntoLex, but it's just the fairest neutral name I
thought to use here while waiting for the final one; there is still a final
decision to be summed up from our votes about the naming of our model: be it
Ontolex, Lemon2 or whatever else..

 

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

Ing. Armando Stellato, PhD

AI Research Group,

Dept. of Enterprise Engineering

University of Roma, Tor Vergata

Via del Politecnico 1 00133 ROMA (ITALY)

tel: +39 06 7259 7330 (office, room A1-14);

     +39 06 7259 7332 (lab)

fax: +39 06 7259 7460

e_mail:  <mailto:stellato@info.uniroma2.it> stellato@info.uniroma2.it

 

--------------------------------------------------