W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: AW: Lexical representations

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:33:15 +0000
Message-ID: <15483.32907.736984.927953@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: <volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
I liked the revised text. The use made of labels by Applications such
as the one Raphael describes may try to apply some form of NL
understanding to such labels, but that is beyond the scope of OWL. If
calling such labels "lexical representations" suggests that such a
usage is intended, then that is another reason for changing to
"displayable labels". In any case, being able to determine the
language of the label can only help to improve this kind of analysis
can't it? - the way things are now you might be applying an English
based analysis to French labels.


On February 25, Raphael Volz writes:
> I'm opposed to changing the text from lexical representations to user
> displayable texts.
> Many of our applications indeed rely heavily on lexical representations.
> E.g. we use word stems to provide references from documents to ontological
> entities in our
> conceptual search application. Word stems are lexical representations for
> ontological
> entities but not intended for user display at all. Some subset of lexical
> representations
> that is labels / documentations are intended for human consumption.
> Raphael
> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> Von: www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-webont-wg-request@w3.org]Im Auftrag von Jeremy Carroll
> Gesendet: Freitag, 22. Februar 2002 10:54
> An: Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Cc: www-webont-wg
> Betreff: RE: Lexical representations
> > Unfortunately, I don't think that this does the trick.  An ontology
> > identifier is, I think, a URI reference.  At least that is what the second
> > requirement appears to be saying.
> >
> Ahh.
> I think you are saying that the term "ontology identifier" is being used for
> two different things. In the second req. as the identifier for an ontology,
> in this req. as an identifier for some object within the ontology.
> I didn't feel very comfortable with your "If ..." since that appeared to be
> weakening the requirement to an optional one (although I don't think that
> was your intent).
> How about hacking "same ontology identifier" to be "same identifier of an
> object within an ontology". It's a bit wordy, but I hope it's good enough.
> i.e. the whole section being:
> [[[
> User displayable labels
> =======================
> The language must support specifying multiple alternative user displayable
> labels for the same identifier of an object within an ontology .
> This can be used, for example, to view the ontology in different natural
> languages.
> ]]]
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2002 07:34:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:42 UTC