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

Re: telco tomorrow, 15:00 CET

From: John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:05:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC5njqq93Ld3Z6r_LPXhmvM3Fe1GWg5WHgyJCGg5sZ5HTguKyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
Cc: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Hi Armando,

The Lexicon class is something that we have carried over from *lemon*,
where it was quite useful for creating an index of the resource, such as
here http://lemon-model.net/lexica/dbpedia_en/Lexicon

For that reason, I would say that it is best to keep it as a core class,
but further describe it in the metadata module

It is the idea that *a* lexicon describes *an* ontology, but of course this
may not always be a strict one-to-one relation, e.g., WordNet would be
modelled as a single lexicon, but could be used to lexically describe many
ontologies

Regards,
John


On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Armando Stellato <
stellato@info.uniroma2.it> wrote:

> Thanks Philipp and John!
> +1 discussion for today: the Lexicon class.
> I was wondering if it is not the case to provide this entry in the metadata
> module, much in the flavour of VoID, where there is an indirection between
> a
> dataset content (which is the dataset itself), and the resource
> void:Dataset, which is described in a void file together with all metadata
> about the dataset. I was also thinking of providing different classes for
> characterizing linguistic resources (LinguisticResource, Dictionary,
> BilingualDictionary etc..), thus allowing clients to know which kind of
> information is being exposed before even querying a resource's content.
> However, as I read it now from the OntoLex core model
> (http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/OntoLex_Core_Model), "the
> Lexicon
> represents a collection of entries describing the vocabulary used by an
> ontology", which is probably a different thing from the above, in that it
> is
> listing thelexical entries that are attached to a given ontology. In this
> sense, any Lexicon instance should be specific to one ontology and contain
> only the entries for that ontology, did I get it right?. So, going ahead, a
> lexical resource modelled after ontolex cannot be the lexicon for one
> ontology, but part of its content can be?
> This makes sense to me, but just asking for confirmation.
> Best,
> Armando
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Philipp Cimiano [mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 9:37 PM
> > To: public-ontolex@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: telco tomorrow, 15:00 CET
> >
> > Sorry, I forgot the diagram with the example.
> >
> > Apologies,
> >
> > Philipp.
> >
> > Am 11.07.13 21:33, schrieb Philipp Cimiano:
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > John sent around a link to the current version of the model early this
> > > week:
> > >
> > > http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/OntoLex_Core_Model
> > >
> > > I attach an illustrative example to this mail that shows how the model
> > > would put into action. Hope this helps.
> > >
> > > Tomorrow we will have our regular telco at 15:00 (CET).
> > >
> > > I will ask everyone on the telco to raise final issues with the model.
> > > If there are no issues, we will then start the voting procedure
> > > involving the whole list.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > 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
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 10:06:13 UTC

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