Re: Material for telco today

On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it> wrote:

> 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 ...
>
My bad... denotes should not be functional. Reference should be still
functional as there should be exactly one sense of a lexical entry in the
ontolex model for each ontological entity it denotes. (By the definition of
sense)

>
>    - 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 did not actually say anything about Meaning,  Expression or Reference ;)

LexicalEntry and LexicalSense can be defined so precisely that they are
disjoint and I think we should do this. Meaning and Reference are
superclasses and so we can remain ambiguous about the disjointness of
Meaning and Expression. As for reference, it is certainly conceivable that
a lexical entry could be the reference of another lexical entry so I agree
this should not be disjoint

Regards,
John

>
> I'll participate at least in the initial part of the telco.
> Aldo
>
> 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 <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
>>
>> Room H-127
>> Morgenbreede 39
>> 33615 Bielefeld
>>
>>
> <ontolex (1).owl><OntoLex-Forms.png>
>
>
>