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

Re: Material for telco today

From: John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 14:26:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC5njqpwSj5iSBjcpoDwTJMP1T6FrVX5zhdzMrHckqS81O25_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>
Cc: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it> wrote:

> Dear Philipp, all
>
> On Jul 5, 2013, at 6:56:32 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?
>
> I do not see any problem. More verbosely, I agree because
> ontolex:OntologyEntity is a subclass of semio:Reference, while
> ontolex:LexicalEntry is a subclass of semio:Expression, and the intended
> conceptualization of ontolex:denotes is totally compatible with that of
> semio:denotes.
>
> In order to make things progress, I edited Philipp's ontology (attached
> with a versioned name) by adding axioms there are missing in my view. For
> the denotes issue I only added an owl:equivalentProperty axiom, by please
> feel free to collapse ontolex:denotes as you suggest.
>
> More in detail, that's the list of axioms that I added, please tell me if
> I'm wrong:
>
> # denotes issue:
> ontolex:denotes owl:equivalentClass semio:denotes .
>
owl:equivalentProperty, right?

>
> # adding ontolex:OntologyEntity (depicted abd assumed, but not in
> ontology):
> ontolex:OntologyEntity rdf:type owl:Class .
> ontolex:OntologyEntity rdfs:subClassOf semio:Reference .
>
I would avoid introducing this, as a lexical entry may also denote a Class
or a Property, not just an individual. Of course, in practice classes and
properties must be punned to individuals to be objects of triples, but I
don't think we should formalize this in the model. Moreover, the
axiomatization is fairly meaningless as everything in the ontology is
already an ontology entity hence ontolex:OntologyEntity ≡ owl:Thing.

Regards,
John

>
> # subclassing LexicalConcept as a type of semio:Meaning (no disagreement
> on my proposal, correct?):
> ontolex:LexicalConcept rdfs:subClassOf semio:Meaning .
>
> # subpropertying ontolex properties to semiotics.owl properties for
> complete alignment:
> ontolex:sense rdfs:subPropertyOf semio:hasInterpretant .
> ontolex:evokes rdfs:subPropertyOf semio:hasInterpretant .
> ontolex:reference rdfs:subPropertyOf semio:isConceptualizationOf .
> ontolex:concept rdfs:subPropertyOf semio:hasConceptualization .
>
> also added some (already agreed but missing) domain and range axioms.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> +1
>
Yep, I agree

>
> >
> > 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?
>
> Yes, CNR is a member
> Aldo
>
>
>
> >
> > 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.owl><ontolex.pdf>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 5 July 2013 12:27:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 10:57:30 UTC