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

RE: telco tomorrow, 15:00 CET

From: Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 14:55:54 +0200
To: "'John McCrae'" <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Cc: "'Philipp Cimiano'" <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, "'public-ontolex'" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001b01ce7eff$262a7500$727f5f00$@info.uniroma2.it>
Yes, agree with you to keep the thing in the core, exactly for purposes like indexing, and with the intentions we described.

But the example at the end is, I think, not compatible with the premises we both made. That is, a part of WordNet would be the Lexicon for a given ontology. It is also true that we may think of partitions of Lexicons still being Lexicons themselves (thus keeping possible the reuse of the class in both cases). In any case it is important to keep the distinction at instance level (so that, a given WordNet partition is the Lexicon for a given ontology, and only those entries of the partition should be indexed for supporting that ontology).





From: johnmccrae@gmail.com [mailto:johnmccrae@gmail.com] On Behalf Of John McCrae
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 12:06 PM
To: Armando Stellato
Cc: Philipp Cimiano; public-ontolex
Subject: Re: telco tomorrow, 15:00 CET


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





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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philipp Cimiano [mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> ]
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 9:37 PM
> To: public-ontolex@w3.org <mailto: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
> Bielefeld
> Phone: +49 521 106 12249 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249> 
> Fax: +49 521 106 12412 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012412> 
> Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> 
> Room H-127
> Morgenbreede 39
> 33615 Bielefeld

Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 12:56:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:36:33 UTC