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

Re: telco tomorrow, 15:00 CET

From: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 00:34:38 +0200
Cc: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>, Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, public-ontolex@w3.org
Message-Id: <4CB923BD-A71D-4A89-9468-649D63AFE14C@cnr.it>
To: Guido Vetere <gvetere@it.ibm.com>
Dear Guido, I do not know how your requests have been dealt with during the telecon, but in all cases that's my comments:

On Jul 12, 2013, at 9:32:19 PM , Guido Vetere <gvetere@it.ibm.com> wrote:

> Philipp et all, 
> 
> here you find a few remarks about the current model, for the telco discussion this afternoon 
> 
> 1. Formal references to external models (e.g. inclusion) should be replaced by annotations \ comments 
> 2. LexicalEntry should be abstract entities (type), i.e. lexicographic accounts of lexemes. As such, they should't be confused with concrete linguistic occurrences (tokens). Note that the derivation (which should be removed anyway) from Expression seems to be problematic under this respect. 

A lexical entry is an expression similarly to textual occurrences, since symbols are symbols, even if they can have different roles. Indeed, a lexical entry can be used in different roles, but I do not find it useful to characterize LexicalEntry in OntoLex as a role.

> 3. LexicalSense (or Sense for short) are part of LexicalEntries, and can be related by lexical relations (e.g. synonymy) the one another. There's no need of linking LexicalConcepts (as collections of 'strict synonym' LexicalSenses, possibly singleton) directly to LexicalEntries. Anyway, it is questionable whether we need such a distinction, as well as a common superclass (Meaning) between the two classes. Maybe we could drop LexicalConcepts and Meaning, and link ontologies directly to LexicalSenses. 

Ah now I get you Guido. Your conceptualization is oriented to the description of the data structure of dictionaries and lexica, rather than to the description of the ontology-lexicon domain. You want to talk about *dictionary* entries as data structures, while in OntoLex (at least in my interpretation) lexical entries are the actual expressions that may take part in dictionary entries (together with senses, glosses, examples, etc.).

> 4. LexicalConcepts (or LexicalSenses if we drop them) 'reference' ontological concepts (I would say that they 'commit to' them). If we want to account for this neatly, we need to link Concepts (Senses) to a 'metaclass', i.e. the class of all ontology classes (e.g. owl:Class if we are in OWLand). 

I do not understand this. Each sense should be connected to one class? Not necessarily, but when applicable, it's already possible with OntoLex. The Sense class should be "linked" to owl:Class? Why, how?

Ciao
Aldo

> 5. The role 'denotes' is just a composition of 'sense' and 'reference', maybe we can remove it from diagrams   
> 
> Sorry for being so short and maybe confused, hope to join the call later. 
> 
> Guido Vetere
> Manager, Center for Advanced Studies IBM Italia
> _________________________________________________
> Rome                                     Trento
> Via Sciangai 53                       Via Sommarive 18
> 00144 Roma, Italy                   38123 Povo in Trento
> +39 (0)6 59662137                 
> 
> Mobile: +39 3357454658
> _________________________________________________ 
> 
> 
> Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
> 11/07/2013 21:36
> 
> To
> public-ontolex@w3.org
> cc
> Subject
> Re: telco tomorrow, 15:00 CET
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I forgot the diagram with the exampe.
> 
> 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
> 
> [attachment "Example.pdf" deleted by Guido Vetere/Italy/IBM] 
> 
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI) 
> Cap. Soc. euro 347.256.998,80
> C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
> Società con unico azionista
> Società soggetta all’attività di direzione e coordinamento di International Business Machines Corporation
> 
> (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise above)
Received on Saturday, 13 July 2013 22:35:09 UTC

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