Re: LIME Final Model

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Manuel Fiorelli <manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear John, All
>
> see my answer below.
>
> 2015-01-23 14:59 GMT+01:00 John P. McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
> >:
>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Manuel Fiorelli <
>> manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> *7. Properties avgNumOfLexicalization, percentage, lexicalizations no
>> longer on Lexicalization*
>>>
>>> This is something that (if I remember correctly) was still under
>>> discussion. However, in the attached document I was open to the possibility
>>> to include these properties the LexicalizationSet.
>>>
>>> The change you propose would dramatically change the semantics of the
>>> model. Currently, a coverage is only a container of statistics. With your
>>> change in place, a coverage would be a dataset, which contains (I presume)
>>> the lexicalization triples.
>>>
>> OK, I think the important thing is that properties such as
>> lexicalizations can be added to the Lexicalization, it didn't look like
>> that from the diagram
>>
>> As for changing the semantics, I disagree. The lexicalization is not
>> truly a 'dataset' in most cases as it is instead may be published as part
>> of a lexicon (or even part of an ontology). Instead it is a dataset in the
>> sense that it some set of triples, in this case the triples linking an
>> ontology to a lexicon, thus for me a resource coverage is also a dataset,
>> that is the set of triples linking a lexicon to a selection of the
>> ontology's entities by type.
>>
>
> In the model, we have the following axiom
>
> lime:LexicalizationSet rdfs:subClass void:Dataset
>
> therefore, each lexicalizationSet is a dataset, in the sense of being a
> set of triples, i.e. representing the association between ontology entities
> and lexical entries.
>
> As you argue, it may be a subset of another dataset. On this last point,
> maybe we were a bit ambiguous in previous telcos/emails. Suppose that I
> want to distribute an ontolex:Lexicon together with a
> lime:LexicalizationSet, what is the appropriate structure of the data?
>
> a)
>
>
> *The lexicon also contains the triples related to the lexicalizationSet*
> :myLexicon a ontolex:Lexicon .
> :myLexicon void:subset :myLexicalizationSet .
>
> :myLexicalizationSet a lime:LexicalizationSet.
>
> b)
>
> *The lexicon does not contain the triples related to the lexicalization;
> instead, both the lexicon and the lexicalizationSet are part of a larger
> dataset.*
>
> :myDataset a void:Dataset .
> :myDataset void:subset :myLexicon .
> :myDataset void:subset :myLexicalizationSet .
>
> :myLexicon a ontolex:Lexicon .
> :myLexicalizationSet a lime:LexicaliztionSet.
>
>
> I thought that we agreed on the solution b), in order to completely remove
> "semantic" information from the lexicon. What is your position?
>
I think both solutions are in principle fine but would also prefer (b)...
I'm not quite sure about the relevance here. By 'true dataset' I mean a
collection of triples grouped together and made available as a single
download, the semantics of VoID are much weaker making parts of a single
download a dataset as well (although the definition
<http://vocab.deri.ie/void#Dataset> of void:Dataset seems to be a 'true
dataset')

For example VoID's classPartition property, which for me is closely related
to lime:coverage, is a subproperty of void:subset, and hence any class
partition is thus a void:Dataset. By the same principle I would say that
the range of lime:coverage is also a void:Dataset as it is also a partition
of the lexicalization. We could even go further and claim lime:coverage ⊑
void:subset!

See:
http://www.w3.org/TR/void/#class-property-partitions
http://vocab.deri.ie/void#classPartition

Regards,
John

>
> --
> Manuel Fiorelli
>