Re: Telco tomorrow

Dear Philippe, all,

I cannot attend this telco because I have to participate in a PhD defense session at the same time.
I think the requirements on lexicon-ontology mapping have definitely improved by now. I had no time to edit it, but some minor improvements on the wording and the examples that can clarify better the claims may be needed.
Ciao
Aldo

On Dec 6, 2012, at 5:39 PM, Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
>  I have edited the following three requirements according to our discussions last week, trying to come up with a synthesis that we can agree upon:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Lexicon-Ontology-Mapping
> 
> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Valence_and_Ontological_Mapping
> 
> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Lexico-Syntactic_Patterns
> 
> Please have a look, I have some questions on these that I would like to discuss tomorrow.
> 
> For example, concerning the pattern:
> NP<class> sein [(AP<property>,)*] oder AP<property>: Aggregatszustände sind flüssig, fest oder gasförmig.
>       :flüssig a owl:DatatypeProperty;
>                rdfs:domain :Aggregatszustand;
>       :fest a owl:DatatypeProperty;
>                rdfs:domain :Aggregatszustand;
>       :gasförmig a owl:DatatypeProperty
>                rdfs:domain :Aggregatszustand;
> It seems to me that flüssig, fest oder gasförmig  can not be properties as they do not have arguments, to they?
> 
> So I see two possibilities:
> 
> 1) Aggregatszustand is a class and flüssig, fest and gasförmig are nominals, i.e. Aggregatszustände \equiv \{flüssig\} \sqcup \{fest\} \sqcup \{gasförmig\}
> 
> 2) aggregatszustand is a object property with can have the individuals ex:flüssig, ex:fest and ex:gasförmig as range
> 
> 3) aggregatszustand is a datatype property with values "flüssig", "fest" and "gasförmig"
> 
> The sentence
> Aggregatszustände sind flüssig, fest oder gasförmig.
> is in fact compatible with all of the above modelling, so which one do we choose when including the pattern in the lexicon-ontology model?
> 
> Further, I have added a new requirement:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements_on_Terminological_Analysis
> 
> We should discuss this one tomorrow in detail.
> 
> Please read through these as I intend to stabilize them tomorrow.
> 
> Looking forward to our talk tomorrow.
> 
> Philipp.
> -- 
> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
> Semantic Computing Group
> Excellence Cluster - Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
> University of Bielefeld
> 
> Phone: +49 521 106 12249
> Fax: +49 521 106 12412
> Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
> 
> Room H-127
> Morgenbreede 39
> 33615 Bielefeld