Re: next telco and todos

Dear Armando, Aldo,

    of course, every contribution in any section is welcome.

On what you say: I understand that many resources have been migrated 
into RDF, but one issue I see is that they all use a different vocabulary.
Would it not be could to have one vocabulary that is general enough to 
represent all these lexical resources? One to bind them all so to speak ;-)


Am 03.02.13 00:58, schrieb Aldo Gangemi:
> Hi Armando, I think any contribution from within the community group is welcome :)
> On Feb 2, 2013, at 2:31:16 PM , "Armando Stellato" <> 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:
>> rk-id.gif
>> 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

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

Room H-127
Morgenbreede 39
33615 Bielefeld

Received on Sunday, 3 February 2013 08:09:53 UTC