Re: Apologies

Dear all,

  I apologize for skipping the telco today at the very last minute, but 
I was caught in a meeting that lasted much longer than expected. I had 
external guests today and could not leave them alone. Please accept my 
apologies.

Concerning the discussion on SKOS, I appreciate very much the systematic 
discussion of pros and cons that we have on the wiki. Thanks especially 
to Armando for contributing to making the choices and issues clear.

I would like to highlight three things to further contribute to the 
discussion:

1) We need to distinguish "being a label" from "being a label of 
something". In SKOS this distinction is meaningful, because lables are 
stand-alone objects in contrast to RDF where they are only literals and 
thus have a life as "labels of something" only. Converting all forms 
into labels is thus not problematic, because we say essentially that 
they are strings, but we do not say that they are "labels of something". 
"Being a lable of something" would need a prefLabel, altLabel or 
hiddenLabel relation.

2) We should distinguish between a formal linking of ontolex to SKOS and 
"they way that people decide to convert an ontolex resource into a SKOS 
resource" and the heuristics they use in that. It is perfectly fine if 
people decide to export all canonical forms as labels of concept, but 
this is a heuristic adopted and we should not elevate heuristics to 
formal axioms I think.

3) Finally, by regarding ontolex:Forms as Labels we leave it to the 
designer to "manually" decide if the written forms became "label of 
something" or remain only as labels that float around. We also give 
maximum freedom to choose whatever form variant they want as label, 
having an indirect link to the lexical entry so to access the other 
forms. This keeps expressivity maximal while giving absolute freedom to 
users in how to choose their labels, making, if this is wanted, a 
conscious choice for every concept. Of course, if someone wants to 
exploit heuristics to transform the data in a particular way making 
specific assumptions it is fine, but we should not enforce this in the 
declarative ontolex model I think.

Having said that, I wish you all merry christmas and a happy new year 
2014 with a lot of energy and capacity to contribute to the ontolex group.

Next year will hopefully culminate in a specification that we all agree 
upon and are happy with.

I thank you all for your great contributions to the ontolex this year. I 
am very happy with our progress and I am sure that next year will be 
very exciting and productive for the group.

Best wishes,

Philipp.

Am 20.12.13 15:56, schrieb Armando Stellato:
> Dear Philipp,
>
> no problem. As we were only in three (Thierry, Elena and me) we decided to
> not discuss anything and postpone to next meeting. However, to use
> positively this time, we stopped 40 minutes on the mapping2skosxl page, to
> recap together pro and contra of the approaches, and limitations of both.
>
> In case we don't exchange emails in the meanwhile...I wish you and all the
> Ontolex group a nice Christmas and a happy new year!
>
> Armando
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Philipp Cimiano [mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de]
>> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 3:01 PM
>> To: <public-ontolex@w3.org>
>> Subject: Apologies
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>    apologies, I can not make it today, sorry. Will write an email later.
>>
>> Philipp
>>
>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>


-- 

Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano

Phone: +49 521 106 12249
Fax: +49 521 106 12412
Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de

Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS)
Raum 2.307
Universität Bielefeld
Inspiration 1
33619 Bielefeld

Received on Friday, 20 December 2013 20:28:36 UTC