- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 15:57:17 +0200
- To: Tiziano Flati <tiziano.flati@gmail.com>, lider <lider@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, public-bpmlod@w3.org
- Message-ID: <53873CBD.5070900@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Dear Tiziano, all, thanks for sending along this nice description. I reviewed it carefully; some comments here: 1) You do not say anything about how the conversion is implemented technically, how and where the original data is stored etc. It would be useful I think to have half a page or so describing how you have implemented the conversion. 2) Choice of URIs: There is very little rationale for how you decided to engineer the URIs, i.e. description of why you adopted the URI naming scheme. A few notes on this for every entity would be good I think. 3)"Information about translation confidence (was it humanly or automatically produced? if automatic, with what confidence score?) and translation provenance (what text(s) does the translation come from? who translated and with what tool?). " -> not clear what the issue here is? That the information can not be represented with the translation relation? It would be good to make the issue explicit. 4) "Another issue concerns whether the relation lexinfo:translationis essential or not: every sense in a language within a BabelSynset is, in fact, a translation of any other sense in another language, so that this information could actually be derived (problem of redundancy). However, having data linked one to each other could also be a benefit, since the information is explicit in the resource. " => This point is not clear to me? Are you discussing if you could do without a translation relation? So how do you represent translation relations without any translation property? Sorry, this point is not clear to me. 5) "If this is true that some terms in the Dublin Core vocabular, according to http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-prov-dc-20130312/, can be mapped in a one-to-one correspondence to terms in the PROV-O (e.g., dc:provenance can be mapped to the PROV-O term prov:has_provenance), this is unfortunately not always the case (e.g., dc:license has no direct corresponding term in the PROV-O)." -> sentence seems broken, at least vocabular should be "vocabulary"; the sentence is not clear in general. Finally, it would be good to end the text with "Recommendations" saying what best practices we recommend for somebody who wants to tansform a similar resource to Linked Data. Can we give a list of Recommended Practices and "Not Recommended Practices" i.e. DOs and DONTs. That would be very useful I think. We could have this DOs and DONTs for all types of resources. Very nice work in general! Best regards, Philipp. Am 22.05.14 10:12, schrieb Tiziano Flati: > Dear all, > > we have compiled a first draft of guidelines for the conversion of > BabelNet as Linguistic Linked Data. The initial draft is here > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/184C_AjY7_PYBSc8SnAFghGLyTo1v312N34dsP9QZokI/edit#>. > > We can probably integrate this into the BPMLOD community report both > as a separate document and in the form of all our resource-dependent > and independent details/comments. > Any feedback and comment is also very appreciated and will help us > improving the draft. > > Best regards, > Tiziano Flati and Roberto Navigli -- 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
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2014 13:57:57 UTC