Re: Teleconference on Friday

Dear Philipp/all,

I am not sure if I can join the telco today. Just in case, let me add here
a brief comment about this issue.
In principle, I would recommend NOT to reuse the same name "Lexicon" for
defining two different classes "ontolex-lemon:Lexicon" and "lime:Lexicon",
specially coming both from the same ONTOLEX model. That might be confusing.
If "lime:Lexicon" is really a "void:Dataset" maybe we should choose a
slightly different (and more significant) name like LexiconDataset or
LexiconData or something like that. Just thinking aloud ;)

Regards,
Jorge


2014-05-16 12:57 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
:

>  Dear all,
>
>  first of all thanks to Armando and Manuel for resending their slides and
> for the very clear exposition of these slides during the last telco in
> April. That was indeed very enlightening.
>
> Given the exposition, I myself am inclined to both accept the
> Lexicalization as well as the ratios as "fist-class citizens".
>
> In any case, let me make a suggestion for what to decide today, we can
> look at the details during the telco of course, but let me try to structure
> the discussion a bit:
>
> 1) ontolex:Lexicon (recommend properties such as creator, version etc.
> from dc and dcat as recommended vocabulary to express general metadata), in
> addition to numerical properties such as: i) number of lexical entries, ii)
> number of senses, iii) number of distinct references, iv) number of
> references that have at least one sense (lexical entry), v) percentage of
> references that have at least one sense (one lexicalization so to speak),
> vi) average number of lexicalization (senses) per reference
>
> One question: is this relative to the lexicon or taking into account all
> the data elements in the lexicalized dataset
>
> 2) lime:Lexicon (lexicon as dataset), see 3 below
>
> with main property lime:lexicalCoverage (Armando already hinted in this
> slides that we could rename LanguageCoverage to LexicalCoverage and
> correspondingly languageCoverage to lexicalCoverage I suppose?)
>
> a LexicalCoverrage class would essentially state for each language and
> each type of lexicon ontology interface model (SKOS, lemon, RDF labels
> etc.) the number of conceptual resources covered by at least one lexical
> entry, the average number of lexical entries per conceptual resource etc.
>
> 3) Introduce lime:Lexicon and lime:Lexicalization as subclasses of
> void:Dataset in the lime module
>
> 4) I think the (sort of) agreement during our last telco was to have the
> ratios/percentages in addition to the absolute numbers as we agreed that
> the absolute numbers can not always be re-computed exactly from the ratios.
> We should reach consensus here.
>
> My opinion is that introducing a few ratio properties will simplify
> accessing this information by people who want to use the lexicon.
> Re-computing this information might be difficult sometimes; not everyone
> speaks SPARQL, not always endpoints are up etc etc. Some ontologies to not
> have endpoints, so people would need to download the data, load it into
> some OWL Api, count the number of individuals, classes etc. quite tedious
> if you are just a user of SW technology ;-) So +1 from my side to include
> some ratios then.
>
> So including this information in the lexicon might indeed be a useful
> addition.
>
> However, I see some issues about *how* to count the number of conceptual
> resources, particularly in the case that there are more than one
> "lexicalized datasets" per lexicon. In this case we might want to provide
> the information per dataset or even per domain, which blows up the
> complexity again substantially.
>
> 5) One question is whether we include *also* in the model the information
> that allows to recompute the ratios as well, that would include that we
> provide both: i) number of conceptual resources in the lexicalized
> dataset(s) - which can be more than one, and ii) number of conceptual
> resources covered by at least one lexicalization. In addition to the ratio.
>
> In this case the ratio would be redundant, so be it. In any case could
> define these properties and monitor which ones are used ;-) We could
> recommend using both the integers and the ratios as good practice.
>
> If we agree on the above points, I volunteer to create a small example
> with Armando on the wiki to aid the discussion.
>
> Talk to you later anyway!
>
> Philipp.
>
>
> Am 15.05.14 18:17, schrieb Armando Stellato:
>
>  Hi Philipp,
>
>
>
> Just a short recap from Manuel and me about the only part which to us
> seemed appended: the ratio/percentage vs count. We do not report anything
> about the model as, at best of our memories, there were no objections about
> the overall structure (which does not mean it is necessarily the final one,
> and it is still open for comments).
>
>
>
> We thus updated the previous document with some considerations (also taken
> from the last ontolex call we had) and reported them in section: 5
>
>  Please, feel free to add more on the “integer side”, so we already have
> a basis for discussion tomorrow.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Armando and Manuel
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: Philipp Cimiano [mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de<cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
> ]
>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:26 PM
>
> > To: public-ontolex@w3.org
>
> > Subject: Teleconference on Friday
>
> >
>
> > Dear all,
>
> >
>
> >    I would like to call for a telco on this Friday on our regular slot:
>
> > 15:00 (CET).
>
> >
>
> > The main goal is to discuss the metadata module and come to a conclusion.
>
> >
>
> > I will send some decision points out before the meeting on Friday.
>
> >
>
> > Access details can be found here as usual:
>
> > https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2014.16.05,<https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2014.16.05,_15-16_pm_CET>
>
> > _15-16_pm_CET<https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2014.16.05,_15-16_pm_CET>
>
> >
>
> > I look forward to talking to you on Friday.
>
> >
>
> > Best regards,
>
> >
>
> > Philipp.
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> >
>
> > Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
>
> >
>
> > Phone: +49 521 106 12249
>
> > Fax: +49 521 106 12412
>
> > Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>
> >
>
> > Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS) Raum 2.307 Universität
> Bielefeld
>
> > Inspiration 1
>
> > 33619 Bielefeld
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
>
> Phone: +49 521 106 12249
> Fax: +49 521 106 12412
> Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>
> Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS)
> Raum 2.307
> Universität Bielefeld
> Inspiration 1
> 33619 Bielefeld
>
>


-- 
Jorge Gracia, PhD
Ontology Engineering Group
Artificial Intelligence Department
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~jgracia/