W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ontolex@w3.org > April 2013

Re: Coining a specific vocabulary for synsets in the OntoLex model

From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:29:38 +0200
Message-ID: <516D1A02.6030804@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
To: public-ontolex@w3.org

   yes, I agree that we should inherit from existing vocabs as much as 

We could introduce something like ontolex:Synset as a subclass of 
skos:Concept for instance.

I am also hesitant to claim that ontolex:LexicalEntry rdfs:subClassOf 

I think what distinguishes our work from the SKOS model is that we do 
acknowledge that we are not only talking about labels but about lexical 
and linguistic entities that have linguistic and lexical properties.

So I am not sure it is really the best to keep the "label" association 
here. After all, this exercise is all about moving beyond simple labels 
as used in RDF, OWL, etc.


Am 16.04.13 11:19, schrieb John McCrae:
> Yes I agree that we should introduce a specific name in our model for 
> Synset.
> Firstly, the modelling proposed for WordNet is based on existing 
> modelling (i.e. lemon (1.0) and SKOS) so hence the usage of skos:Concept
> As for  a new class I am not so keen on the name SemanticIndex, I 
> would assume that the best would simply be to call it Synset, so as to 
> ease adoption among the wider community. Semantic index I dislike as 
> it is for associated with Latent Semantic Indexing, and in this sense 
> more of a signature of a concept than a concept itself.
> I don't think we should explicitly say the ontolex:LexicalForm is a 
> skosxl:Label. In fact, the lexical form represents the orthographic 
> union of surface forms of words, that is the same form (at least 
> according to the lemon definition, itself based directly on the LMF 
> definition) can have multiple strings (e.g., spelling variants, 
> version in other writing systems, pronunciations, segmentations, etc.) 
> unlike a SKOS-XL label.
> Regards,
> John
>     4)IMHO, we should coin a specific vocabulary for each element of
>     the lexicon model, and then inherit (where appropriate) from
>     SKOS/SKOSXL, to distinguish such elements which belong only to a
>     lexical resource from those of any generic KOS. In the wiki, John
>     wonders if what I called “SemanticIndex” is not a skos:Concept,
>     and I reply: “yes it is, in fact my proposal is that our
>     vocabulary for describing lexical resources can inherit from the
>     SKOS/SKOS-XL one”. If you look at the example, even John did this,
>     as the LexicalForm is nothing different from a skosxl:Label (where
>     lemon:writtenRep could be replaced by skosxl:literalForm) though
>     it may be worth creating a dedicated class. I would thus suggest:
>     LexicalForm rdfs:subClassOf skosxl:Label
>     but to use skosxl:literalForm instead of lemon:writtenRep
>     maybe, in this specific case, we can even not reinvent a name, and
>     totally reuse the skosxl:Label, which after all is not so bad and
>     pretty fitting our necessities… (as it is already related to
>     something specifically thought for language).
>     On the contrary, for LLD, I would necessarily restrict the class
>     skos:Concept to the class of elements which we expect to host
>     things like the WordNet Synset class. You can see my sample
>     extension-point above in the wiki (“Examples of Modelling in RDF
>     (Alternative approach)”), though by now mean I suggest
>     <SemanticIndex> (that was a placeholder, taken from a previous
>     work), but in any case I think “Sense” is not appropriate
>     (lemon:sense well evokes the sense relation, while I don’t like to
>     see a class of “Senses”, that is, to me being a sense is more a
>     role in a given relationship, than a intrinsic property of an object).
>     a.While I think that a more-specific-than-skos:Concept class would
>     be welcome for Lexical Linked Data (such as WordNet), and thus put
>     in the middle of the: LexicalEntry --> ??? --> OntologyResource
>      template, I’m not sure that the lemon:sense (first arrow) should
>     be necessarily restricted to it. John’s use of skos:Concept in the
>     middle suggested me that even a generic well-lexicalized KOS could
>     be used for providing LexicalEntries and Senses to enrich an
>     ontology. However, I’m still thinking about it…

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 Tuesday, 16 April 2013 09:30:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:36:30 UTC