- From: Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
- Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 14:31:16 +0100
- To: "'Aldo Gangemi'" <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>, "'Philipp Cimiano'" <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Cc: <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Dear all, > Anyway, I had previously updated the requirements for lexical resources, so > John, if you want to discuss my updates let's do it on the list. > As I said last time, we shouldn't concentrate in representing WordNet or any > other specific resource: fo rmany of them, work has been done and we do not > need to redo it again. > However, we need to abstract from the requirements coming those resources > in order to make them as interoperable as possible without unnecessary > complexity. > Aldo May I contribute to that req or the wiki is intended for the main investigators of each requirement section? (maybe in the section discussion of the page?). I had some ideas about interoperability, in the spirit of: http://art.uniroma2.it/software/LinguisticWatermark/images/LinguisticWaterma rk-id.gif http://art.uniroma2.it/publications/docs/2008_SWAP2008_LinguisticWatermark3. 0.pdf surely they can be modeled better (supporting linguistic interoperability in software tools was the aim there, and no a rigorous lexical model), but I think that is the thing Aldo is hinting to, too. Cheers, Armando P.S. In any case I'll be off for 3 days due to a project final meeting, but can go over it on Friday or the following week
Received on Saturday, 2 February 2013 13:30:06 UTC