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