W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ontolex@w3.org > November 2012

Summary of teleconference last Friday

From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 23:25:23 +0100
Message-ID: <50B14953.5070002@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
To: "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Dear all,

  here is a brief summary of our telco last Friday together with action 
points for our next telco on Dez. 7th at the usual time, 15:00 (CET).

We discussed the following requirements:

1) Express meaning with respect to ontology: 
http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Lexicon-Ontology-Mapping

We generally agreed on the formulation of the requirement. However, Aldo 
mentioned that the view of the sense as merely a reification might be to 
restrictive.  I propose we define a sense as a "linguistic sign"  
representing the disambiguated meaning of a lexical entry when 
interpreted as a given concept c. Technically, the sense object that 
stands for this disambiguated sense also reifies the relation between 
the lexical entry and the concept in question.

Would that be fine?

2)  Valence and high-order mapping: 
http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Lexicon-Ontology-Mapping

We had a first discussion of the main issues raised by John in the text. 
One of the main questions is whether subcategorized arguments are 
identified through grammatical functions or through semantic roles.

My intuition is that the semantic of the roles played by grammatical 
functions in a specific construction will be in the ontology, so there 
is no need to have semantic/thematic roles attached to syntactic arguments.

Action Point: Philipp and John to start a discussion

3) Lexico-syntactic patterns: 
http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Lexico-Syntactic_Patterns

We had quite a long discussion on this requirement.

Dagmar: would you be ok if I try to rework the text and provide a 
version of the req. that we can agree upon on Dec. 7th?

Action Point: Philipp to modify requirement

All: I propose that we create a separate requirement on term analysis, 
would that be fine?

Action Point: Philipp to create new requirement on term analysis

Please let me know your comments.

Have a good weekend!

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
Received on Saturday, 24 November 2012 22:25:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:36:27 UTC