Re: Summary of teleconference last Friday

Hi, all

>
> So I propose we simply call it "a sign that represents the disambiguated
> meaning of a lexical entry when interpreted as concept c.

>Fine. I had the same thinking, but in the end thought "linguistic sign is
>not that bad": from some point of view, this sign can be seen as something
>in the linguistic dimension connecting word senses to objects of the world.
>Definitely, ontology entities are sign themselves, which only after
>interpretation bring to real world objects, thus "linguistic" didn't sound
>so bad to me.


Unless that "sign" includes other signs that are not linguistic, I don't
see the point of missing the "linguistic" part, if we always refer to
linguistic signs at that level.
So, I'd stick to "linguistic sign" if only signs of that type are
considered.


Cheers
Guadalupe


2012/11/28 Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>

> > rethinking the lingustic sign, actually it is "sign". We should not call
> it
> > linguistic in my view as it is something at the interface between the
> lexicon
> > and the ontology and not only at the linguistic side.
> >
> > So I propose we simply call it "a sign that represents the disambiguated
> > meaning of a lexical entry when interpreted as concept c.
>
> Fine. I had the same thinking, but in the end thought "linguistic sign is
> not that bad": from some point of view, this sign can be seen as something
> in the linguistic dimension connecting word senses to objects of the world.
> Definitely, ontology entities are sign themselves, which only after
> interpretation bring to real world objects, thus "linguistic" didn't sound
> so bad to me.
>
> However, in the overall definition:
>
> sense :- a <...> representing the disambiguated meaning of a lexical entry
> when interpreted
>
> sign alone is ok.
>
> > Concerning the reasoning: we will only do reasoning between senses and
> the
> > classes they denote, but not infer any relationships between the
> ontological
> > classes, but only between the senses proper.
>
> I'm not sure I would even like to infer some relationship between
> linguistic
> senses, such as inferring that a wn:Synset is a hyponym of another one, due
> to some relationship between classes they are attached to in a given
> onto-lex mapping. However, after grounding the basic ontolex vocabulary,
> and
> on the representation of Linguistic Resurces [1], we will have more clear
> what we would like to be inferable and what is better to leave out of
> inference.
>
> [1]
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Linke
> d_Data
>
> Cheers,
>
> Armando
>
>
>