Re: Next Ontolex Meeting, tomorrow, Feb 22, 12:00

Hi, tomorrow I have a flight at due time (last minute change), then regrets.
Concerning SKOS and Ontolex, I wanted to suggest some kind of vocabualry alignment to SKOS-XL, which is definitely useful, as well a more strict commitment to the mapping vocabulary of SKOS, in absence of anything better.
Concerning the first, subclassing is a good idea, since SKOS is substantially ignorant (=neutral) on what kind of concepts/expressions it commits to.
Concerning the second, we might either reuse the mapping relations directly, or subpropertying new ones, which might catch more nuances in linguistic mappings.
However, there is an additional requirement that I forgot to mention, i.e. the need to represent confidence for a mapping. The patterns here include at least:

1) annotating the relation with a confidence value (via RDF reification or OWL axiom annotation)
2) creating a Mapping class with appropriate relations to mapped entities, confidence, and eventually provenance, algorithm if any, etc.

The first pattern enables to reuse SKOS-based triples by annotating them.
The second has been formalized in an ad-hoc vocabulary by François Scharffe and Jerome Euzenat for the AlignmentAPI in the NeOn project. Now it has evolved as EDOAL [1], and is quite a rich language, which is optimized for ontology matching data. However, its edoal:Cell element has the features that I'm describing. I suggest to reuse it, or at least to align to it.

Ciao
Aldo

[1] http://alignapi.gforge.inria.fr/format.html

On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:23:24 PM , Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:

> Dear Armando,
> 
> ok, thanks for letting us know.
> 
> Concerning SKOS-XL: yes, we should check whether we can align to it somehow. 
> On the subclassing idea: this would mean that for instance lemon:Sense would be a subclass of skos:Concept and lemon:LexicalEntry a subclass of skosxl:Label?
> 
> I do not see really other alternatives really. We have to think about whether this is what we want? 
> 
> In general: are there any arguments why we should consider aligning to SKOS / SKOS-XL?
> 
> Philipp.
> 
> Am 21.02.13 12:25, schrieb Armando Stellato:
>> Dear all,
>>  
>> I’m sorry I cannot attend too. The one-week shift collided with student exams I set in advance for that date.
>> However, in the previous days I added more info on:
>> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Metadata#Metadata_about_RDF_Linguistic_Resources
>>  
>> and defined two sets of metadata (one for Lexical Nets, and one for ontologies enriched with linguistic info). Plus, I reported on my thoughts (and discussions with other people) regarding the subjects of these metadata. More to come in the following days.
>>  
>> Finally, getting back to a previous msg from Aldo about http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Linked_Data, and his observations about SKOS. I think it is important to understand if and how SKOS (and SKOS-XL) may be reused in this modeling.
>> SKOS concepts may provide the conceptual backbone of lexical resources (e.g. synsets in wordnet), while reified labels coming from SKOS-XL may allow for the specification of lexical relationships. Thus, while sitting on top of the SKOS-XL skeleton, this could be only a:
>> 1)      Subclassing work: e.g. define Senses, Lexical Entry etc… as specific subclasses of SKOS(XL) elements.
>> 2)      Instantiation:  e.g. A vocabulary of reusable, shareable, lexical relationships.
>>  
>> Cheers,
>>  
>> Armando
>>  
>> From: Guadalupe Aguado [mailto:gac280771@gmail.com] 
>> Sent: giovedì 21 febbraio 2013 09.30
>> To: Philipp Cimiano
>> Cc: public-ontolex@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Next Ontolex Meeting, tomorrow, Feb 22, 12:00
>>  
>> Dear Philipp
>> 
>> I'm afraid I won't be able to attend the meeting, as I'll be in a doctoral thesis board.
>> Elena will attend the meeting.
>> 
>> Best regards
>> Lupe
>>  
>> 
>> 2013/2/21 Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
>> Dear all,
>> 
>>  this is to inform you that tomorrow we will have our regular ontolex teleconference.
>> 
>> We will continue our discussion of particular examples, in particular looking at the contributions here:
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Lexicon-Ontology-Mapping
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements_on_Terminological_Analysis
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Properties-and-Relations-of-Entries
>> 
>> Paul/Mihael: I do not see any RDF examples in the wiki yet, will you manage to work them out until tomorrow?
>> 
>> Elena/Lupe: same for you, I do not see any RDF examples in the wiki yet
>> 
>> John: you wanted to work out how to represent Lexical Nets* in lemon, with WordNet as an example; can you please provide some RDF code for this?
>> 
>> >>From then on, I would discuss how to i) model lexico-syntactic patterns (Dagmar: are you going to be there?) and ii) how to link entries across resources. We could start with Framenet / Verbnet for example, then showing how they can be used within a lemon lexical entry. Linking to wiktionary could be also considered as well as to ISOCAT.
>> 
>> Another issue will be to look at modelling terminological resources in the lexicon-ontology model.
>> 
>> Thanks to everybody. We have to get concrete and produce some (draft of a) spec this year ;-)
>> 
>> Philipp.
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>>  
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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