Meeting Today

Dear all,

  thanks to all those that attended today's meeting. The minutes, 
actions points etc. can be found here: 
http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2012.10.12,_3-4_pm_CET

We mainly discussed the three requirements 1-3 today. We decided to 
merge requirements 1 and 2 together.
We also had a long discussion on how to name the objects and properties 
in the path that we all seem to agree with, the one connecting the 
Lexical Entry over a reified object (Sense?) to the ontological concept.

My proposal is to name the path:

Lexical Entry -> hasSense -> Sense -> representedBy -> OntologyEntity

and have further a shortcat Lexical Entry -> hasMeaning -> OntologyEntity

We discussed pros and cons of this approach. We clearly agreed that 
'Sense' in the above chain is not a Synset. It represents the lexical 
entry when intrepreted as the concept in question and thus corresponds 
more closely to a 'Sense' in Wordnet.

There was the proposal of calling this a `Sememe', which I personally 
dislike for being quite technical. Further, "Sememe" refer to a semantic 
unit of meaning (a semantic atom) and this proposes that we only 
consider atomic meanings, which we don't (see my example of a bachelor). 
John rightfully argued that what is atomic is the 'sense' and not the 
ontological meaning, which can be composite, but I think this is very 
subtle and will be difficult to grasp by people.

If we agree to not have a shortcut, however, then my proposal would be 
to call the path:

Lexical Entry -> meaning -> Sense -> representedBy -> OntologyEntity

Other than than, we agreed on the following ACTION POINTS for the next 
meeting:

ALL: contribute proposals to this list how to name the `core path' 
mentioned above and provide a motivation for the naming. This concerns 
the name of the reification object (Sense?) as well as the properties 
that link the lexical entry to the sense and the sense to the 
OntologyEntity. Please also provide arguments for or against having a 
shortcut that is equivalent to the chain of the two properties.
PHILIPP: streamline description of requirement 1 along the comments of today
JOHN: streamline the description of requirement 3, limiting the 
presentation to a few top-level properties
JOHN: provide a draft for Req 4 (High-order mappings)
DAGMAR: provide a draft for Req 5 (Lexico-Syntactic Patterns)
ARMANDO: provide a draft for Req 6 (Metadata)

Philipp remainded everyone to use *SHOULD*-language in their 
requirements ;-)

The next meeting will be on the 26th of October, 15:00 (CET). The agenda 
etc. can be found here:

http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2012.10.26,_3-4_pm_CET

The agenda will be:

Agenda:

    * Discussion on naming of Path from Lexical Entry over Sense to
      OntologyEntity
    * Discussion of Req. 4 (Higher-Order Mappings -> John to prepare a
      draft)
    * Discussion on Req. 5 (Lexico-Syntactic Patterns -> Dagmar to
      prepare a draft)
    * Discussion on Req. 6 (Metadata -> Armando to provide a draft)
    * Next steps


Greetings,

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