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

RE: Summary of teleconference last Friday

From: Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:18:12 +0100
To: "'Philipp Cimiano'" <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Message-ID: <008f01cdcbc7$c73ff3c0$55bfdb40$@uniroma2.it>
> 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
> a given concept c. Technically, the sense object that stands for this
> disambiguated sense also reifies the relation between the lexical entry
> the concept in question.
> Would that be fine?

+1 on my side on the "linguistic sign" definition. Btw, by reading the wiki,
I also read about the reasoning on senses based on relationships between
concepts they are referencing. I've some perplexity on this, as this would
induce, in parallel, some undesired effects or constraints (e.g. I wouldn't
like to worry about the fact that a sense which some LR considers as a
narrower sense of another one, would imply a subclassof between two classes
they are linked to...).


Received on Monday, 26 November 2012 11:19:16 UTC

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