Re: ontolex.owl

Dear Philipp, All

please my answers below.

2014-06-27 10:37 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
:

>  Dear Manuel, all,
>
>  see my answers below....
>
> Am 23.06.14 16:30, schrieb Manuel Fiorelli:
>
> Dear Philipp,
>
> I reviewed the final specification (
> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Final_Model_Specification) and
> the OWL ontology (
> https://github.com/cimiano/ontolex/blob/master/Ontologies/ontolex.owl),
> for what concerns with the core module. The following paragraphs follows
> the structure of the final specification; However, I interweave comments on
> the OWL ontology as well.
>
> *Comments on the ontology (ontolex.owl):*
>
> The comments on the defined entities are represented as xsd:string typed
> literal. In fact, they should be plain literals (or language tagged
> literals, in RDF 1.1) with language tag en.
>
>
> You are right, a changed the range of all comments to xsd:string
>

In the old RDF parlance, a comment should be a plain literal (without
datatype) with a given language tag (in our case "en"). In RDF 1.1, such
literals have, in fact, datatype rdf:langString. However, it seems that the
XML serialization is able to infer such datatype from the presence of a
language tag (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-literal-node).
Therefore, for the sake of compatibility, I would say that a comment should
be like this:

        <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en">The Form class represents one
lexical variant of the written representation of a lexical
entry.</rdfs:comment>


>
> *Section "Core*"
>
> In the previous section you associate the ontolex: prefix to the
> namespace <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#>.
> However, in the vocabulary description, you use URIs such as <
> http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex/LexicalEntry>, which assumes a
> different namespace <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex/>.
>
>  OK, I am not sure which namespace we should choose, we should briefly
> discuss this today.
>

As a starting point, we could consider this:
http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#choosing

I just noticed that many popular vocabularies (RDF, RDFS, OWL, ...) use the
#, but there are some significant exceptions, such as foaf and dc terms.

>
> *Section "Core" / "Forms"*
>
> In the specification of the class Form, you use a qualified number
> restriction, while in the ontology you use an ordinary number restriction.
> Moreover, the examples following the class definition don't explain to me,
> when a form may have two or more written representations.
>
>
> In the ontology I use a qualified number restriction, can you please check
> again?
>
>
On github it seems that you use an ordinary number restriction (
https://github.com/cimiano/ontolex/blob/master/Ontologies/ontolex.owl#L373).

In fact, I am not sure which form is preferable.

>
>  I would be more explicit about the possibility to mix language tags: for
> example, "en" for the Lexicon and "en-GB"/"en-US" for morphological
> variations of a lexical entry. I don't know if it is the case to explicitly
> asserting that you should not have a lexicon for english containing a
> lexical form in French.
>
>  In principle all lexical entries in a lexicon should have the same
> language, but we can not enforce this at the ontology level, so this should
> be something that we add to the definition of a lexicon, what do you think?
>
>
I agree with you that some constraints cannot be formalized in OWL.
However, I would like to see some mention of this constraint somewhere in
the spec (but probably not in the definition itself).



>
> *Section "Core" / "Lexical Concept"*
>
> In the ontology, there is no axiom relating ontolex:LexicalConcept to
> skos:Concept.
>
>  I had trouble importing the SKOS ontology. Can you maybe help and try to
> import the SKOS ontology, add the axiom and then create a merge request on
> GIT?
>
>
>
I will try later, this evening.


>  In the ontology, ontolex:isEvokedBy has no inverse property axiom.
>
>
> It has, can you check it again?
>
>
Assuming that the serializer has not scattered the element description, I
don't find on github the axiom (
https://github.com/cimiano/ontolex/blob/master/Ontologies/ontolex.owl#L160).
It may be the case you see an inferred axiom.

-- 
Manuel Fiorelli