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

Re: next telco and todos

From: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 00:58:14 +0100
Cc: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@gmail.com>, "'Aldo Gangemi'" <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>, "'Philipp Cimiano'" <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2DCE6C06-638F-42C4-9482-8776662B2C41@gmail.com>
To: <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
Hi Armando, I think any contribution from within the community group is welcome :)

On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:31:16 PM , "Armando Stellato" <stellato@info.uniroma2.it> wrote:

> 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 23:58:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:36:29 UTC