Re: Summary of teleconference last Friday

Armando, all,

  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.

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.

Best regards,

Philipp.

Am 26.11.12 12:18, schrieb Armando Stellato:
>> 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?
> +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...).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Armando
>


-- 
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 Monday, 26 November 2012 19:38:44 UTC