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 14:32:21 +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: <0F588E86-203B-49D7-8EE9-A6BD65098F62@cnr.it>
To: John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>


On Jul 5, 2013, at 2:26:48 PM , John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 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? 

Yeah, sure, sorry

> 
> # 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. 
> 

Ok, pragmatically speaking that's correct :)
Aldo

> 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 12:32:49 UTC

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