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

Re: Material for telco today

From: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 14:24:52 +0200
Cc: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>, Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7D2EC94E-6C4E-491E-935F-8F8E97C0DF6B@cnr.it>
To: John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Hi John, some comments:

On Jul 5, 2013, at 1:12:31 PM , John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:

> Hi All,
> I added some extensions to the model
> denotes and reference are functional
Can we be sure of that? Alternative denotations and references can occur in a model or a union of models ...
> Add the Form and Lexicon class
> Add the object properties lexicalForm, otherForm, canonicalForm and entry
> Added datatype properties language and writtenRep
> Add pairwise disjoint axioms for Lexicon, LexicalEntry, Form, Sense and LexicalConcept
Here I'd rather avoid too much commitment on semiotic disjointness. The classical counterexamples of Peirce's is that an expression can be used as an interpretant of another. More counterexamples exist when dealing with the de re vs. de dicto usage of language. In my opinion (reflected in semiotics.owl), Meaning, Expression and Reference should not be assumed as disjoint.

I'll participate at least in the initial part of the telco.

> Attached is the updated file and a sketch of the extensions
> Regards,
> John
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
> Dear all,
>    I attach the current version of the OWL ontology for ontolex core as well as an update diagram.
> On the last telco there was basically agreement on this. I kindly ask you to raise any remaining issues until Thursday next week.
> The telco on Friday 12th will be devoted to to a formal vote on the core, but we will also accept votes per email.
> >From the point of time we formally agree on the core, all changes to the core will only be done after the majority here agrees on the changes.
> I have only one issue myself: So far, there are two "denotes"-relations in ontolex.owl. The first one is a properietary one introduced by ontolex.owl and the other comes from semiotics.owl.
> If possible, we should reuse the one from semiotics.owl I think.
> Aldo/all: is there any problem you see with that?
> Once the core is done we will distribute responsabilities to work on a number of single modules: syntax-semantics / terminological and morphological variation / pragmatics / patterns and constructions, etc. We will devote one conference in a month to each of these modules.
> I willl rely on responsibles for each of these modules to prepare content and discussions. I advance that we might move to 2h regular telcos from then on.
> I will bring up the issue of moving to a W3C Working group again. As a first indication, could you all let me know if you are W3C members?
> Talk to you today!
> 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
> <ontolex (1).owl><OntoLex-Forms.png>

Received on Friday, 5 July 2013 12:25:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:36:33 UTC