Re: A final set of issues with the specification

Dear all,

  thanks for the comments... I am having a hard time overseeing the 
discussion as I am working on cleaning up the wiki in parallel and some 
things are obsolete at the time of writing. Nevertheless, let me react 
to a few points:

1) renaming context by usage -> agreed from my side
2) Splitting the ambiguity into two examples (fine, will do it)
3) keeping category property: yes, I agree with Jorge that we might want 
something that is "weaker" than rdf:type and has no semantic 
implications such as inferring that the category is a class

All for now...

Philipp.

Am 04.09.15 um 17:40 schrieb Jorge Gracia:
> Dear John, Elena, all,
>
> Answering about the "category" property issue...
>
> 2015-09-04 11:28 GMT+02:00 John McCrae <john@mccr.ae 
> <mailto:john@mccr.ae>>:
>
>>>
>>>             3. The vartrans:category "property indicates the
>>>             specific type of a relation", we already have a property
>>>             to do this namely rdf:type! It is not clear to me from
>>>             the text why we need to redefine this property. (i.e.,
>>>             either we need to better justify this or drop this property)
>>             No clear opinion about this yet.
>>
>         The*category*property indicates the specific type of relation
>         by which two lexical entries or two lexical senses are related.
>         Indeed, the definition may seem a bit general. However, the
>         rdf:type property seems to us as"too underspecified" (and,
>         therefore, not worthy of being included in the vartrans
>         module...) and maybe not familiar to the linguistic community.
>         We propose to slightly modify the definition as
>         "The*category*property indicates the specific type of
>         *lexico-semantic relation* by which two lexical entries or two
>         lexical senses are related"
>         And add an explanation in this line: This property is meant to
>         capture different lexical and semantic relations of the sort:
>         initialism, ortographic variant, dialectal or geographic
>         variant, register variant, chronological variant, stylistic
>         variant, dimensional variant, synonymy, antonymy, or
>         translation. A set of lexico-semantic relations are available
>         in the lexinfo vocabulary.
>         (A nice list of these types of variation and translation
>         relations was included some time ago at:
>         http://www.w3..org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Properties-and-Relations-of-Entries
>         <http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Properties-and-Relations-of-Entries>)
>
>         Finally, ObjectProperty: Category, should be in small letters,
>         right?
>
>     The advantage of rdf:type is that we have normal ontology
>     reasoning. For example in WordNet we have not just meronyms, but
>     'part', 'substance' and 'member' meronyms so with rdf:type from
>     the following
>
>     :myLSR          rdf:type        wordnet:PartMeronym .
>     wordnet:PartMeronym rdfs:subClassOf lexinfo:Meronym .
>     lexinfo:Meronym     rdfs:subClassOf vartrans:SenseRelation.
>
>     Then from this we can infer that myLSR is a meronym and a sense
>     relation. If we introduce a category property then it is very
>     difficult to create a hierarchy of LSRs, right?
>
>
> According to the RDFS semantics rdf:type is used to state that a 
> resource is an instance of a class. So A rdf:type B states that B is 
> an ontology Class. In some situations this is OK, such as in the last 
> example given by John. But in some other this is not intended. For 
> instance, if we would replace in "Example vartrans/example1"
>
> :fao_initialism vartrans:category <http://www.isocat.org/rest/dc/333>
>
> by
>
> :fao_initialism rdf:type <http://www.isocat.org/rest/dc/333>
>
> we are inferring that <http://www.isocat.org/rest/dc/333> (category 
> for "initialism") is a Class, which is probably not intended as Isocat 
> is just a (plain) catalog of categories (annotations at most, but not 
> classes).
>
> In my view, we have to keep "vartrans:category" and use "rdf:type" in 
> addition when further inference is desired.
>
> Regards,
> Jorge
>
>
> -- 
> Jorge Gracia, PhD
> Ontology Engineering Group
> Artificial Intelligence Department
> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
> http://jogracia.url.ph/web/

-- 
--
Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
AG Semantic Computing
Exzellenzcluster für Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
Universität Bielefeld

Tel: +49 521 106 12249
Fax: +49 521 106 6560
Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de

Office CITEC-2.307
Universitätsstr. 21-25
33615 Bielefeld, NRW
Germany