- From: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 14:32:21 +0200
- To: John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- 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>
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