Re: Some remarks on LIME

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Manuel Fiorelli <manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear John, All
>
> sorry for the delay in responding. You can find my replies below.
>
> 2015-03-09 14:49 GMT+01:00 John P. McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
> >:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Manuel Fiorelli <
>> manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Remark #1
>>> The figure on the wiki (
>>> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Final_Model_Specification#Metadata_.28lime.29)
>>> is outdated. However, I do believe this is due to the fact that the
>>> vocabulary is still being discussed.
>>>
>> The up-to-date diagram is here
>>
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwvuzIAhamr9X1dwRkUyTjRFaVU/view?usp=sharing
>>
>> Let me know if you see any errors.
>>
>
> I don't see any error. Maybe just an omission: the property references
> for the class *Lexical Link Set*.
>
OK added

>
> Some further notes:
>
>    - should we include ontolex:language to the diagram, although that
>    property is defined in a different namespace?
>
> Yep, that is fine

>
>    -
>    - do we want to indicate the cardinality constraints in the diagram?
>    e.g. that a *lexicalization set* has exactly 1 *reference dataset* and
>    at most one *lexicon*. In the affirmative case, however, we should not
>    forget any of the constraints defined in the vocabulary
>    - do we want to specify the datatypes of the attributes?
>
> I don't really want to, it makes the diagram more complex for relatively
little gain

>
>>> Remark #3
>>> In the formula defining lime:percentage (
>>> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/images/b/bb/Percentage_formula.gif),
>>> it appears something like "entity ∈ reference", which is not entirely
>>> obvious to me.
>>>
>>  Maybe it should be 'entity ∈ reference-dataset' or just 'entity', would
>> that be clearer?
>>
>
> Mmm... I would have voted entity ∈ reference-dataset; however, I am not
> sure whether it is consistent with our notion of partition with respect to
> lime:resourceType.
>
> The closest thing to what I have in my mind is
>
> entity ∈ reference-datasetresourceType
>
> I am not sure if there is a standardized notion for this. Moreover, if the
> use of resourceType is not compulsory (for the "top lexicalization set"),
> then this notation might be misleading.
>
OK, will try to remember to update the image for the final version

>
>
>>
>>
>>> Remark #4
>>> lime:conceptualDataset or lime:conceptDataset? I remember we have
>>> discussed it, but I am not sure if we agreed on a choice. The intended
>>> meaning should be "a dataset containing lexical concepts".
>>>
>> Conceptual? I don't really mind either though
>>
>
> I have no strict position on this subject. However, a point for
> conceptDataset could be the analogy with lexiconDataset (rather than
> lexicalDataset).
>
That seems like as good an argument as any.

Regards,
John

>
>
>>
>> Remark #7
>>>
>>> There is no class ontolex:Conceptualization, which associates an
>>> ontolex:Lexicon with a ontolex:LexicalConceptSet. With respect to this
>>> class, I wonder whether we can find a less ambiguous name. Indeed, it
>>> recalls to may mind the famous definition "an ontology is a formal,
>>> explicit specification of a shared conceptualization" (Studer et al.,
>>> 1998), in which the word conceptualization is used in a rather different
>>> sense.
>>>
>> Last thing I know was from Armando saying he will 'reply soon' (on Jan
>> 30). From my point of view, I don't principally object to this but could
>> you send an updated proposal.
>>
>
> We will send to you an update as soon as possible.
>
>
>
> --
> Manuel Fiorelli
>