- From: John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:23:11 +0200
- To: Elena Montiel Ponsoda <elemontiel@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAC5njqp+UDwKWh0P41223TXk4MMcswksaa+_peG-YVm0yyWE7A@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Elena Montiel Ponsoda < elemontiel@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear John, > > thanks for this. I have some doubts/questions regarding this example that > may be due to the fact that I have missed some telcos. > If that is the case, my apologies. > > Are there no mechanisims in lemon to say that catted is the past > participle form of "to cat", and cating is the gerund form. I think that > the use of canonical form vs. other form is well suited for nouns, but > somehow strange for verbs, what do you think? > Yes, there are but WordNet itself does not distinguish between these forms. I don't really see why it is different for verbs as opposed to nouns though. > > Regarding the use of skos, if I understand it correctly, it is intended to > represent the lexical relations in Wordnet, right? For example, the > hypernonymy-hyponymy relation would correspond to the skos:broader or > skos:narrower relations. Is that so? In this way, skos would be used for > the conceptual part, I mean, for transforming the lexical relations into > ontological relations? > Yeah, WordNet synsets we generally agree do not correspond to a concept as strong as a class in OWL, but SKOS's concept hierachy is basically conceptually identical. Hence, we are using lemon not so much as a lexicon-ontology but a lexicon-KOS. > > Howerver, for the definition or gloss, shouldn't we use lemon:definition. > In this way, we would be using SKOS for the conceptual part and lemon for > the lexical-linguistic part, would that be the idea? As I said, maybe I am > missing something. > Perhaps, but lemon:definition is a sense level property and the synset glosses are on the synset level, hence it makes more sense to use the SKOS property. > > Finally, wouldn't it be nice to represent in the lemon:sense class that > "to cat" is the colloquial use for vomiting? I think that since we are able > to represent such contextual restrictions, we would really make a > difference by doing it, don't you think so? > WordNet does have a property for this and it is exported properly, however it seems to be missing from this synset (hence this example). Regards, John > > Just my two cents! > Best, > Elena. > > El 12/04/2013 16:10, John McCrae escribió: > > Hi all, >> >> Here is the proposed modelling of WordNet as lemon and SKOS (using >> skos:Concept for synsets) >> >> http://www.w3.org/community/**ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_** >> Requirements/Linked_Data#**Example:_WordNet_as_lemon-SKOS<http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Linked_Data#Example:_WordNet_as_lemon-SKOS> >> >> Any comments? >> >> Regards, >> John >> > > > -- > Elena Montiel-Ponsoda > Ontology Engineering Group (OEG) > Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial > Facultad de Informática > Campus de Montegancedo s/n > Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, España > www.oeg-upm.net > Tel. (+34) 91 336 36 70 > Fax (+34) 91 352 48 19 > >
Received on Monday, 15 April 2013 08:23:39 UTC