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

Re: telco tomorrow, 15:00 CET

From: Guido Vetere <gvetere@it.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:18:42 +0200
To: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>
Cc: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>, Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, public-ontolex@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE9C91E3C.BD7E3ACA-ONC1257BA9.001F7EBF-C1257BA9.00599F13@it.ibm.com>
Ciao Aldo, please find my comments below.



Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it> wrote on 14/07/2013 00:34:38:

> ... 
> 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.).
> 

Good to know that my friends understand me :-) Actually, this is a very 
basic decision we have to take: what LexicalEntry is meant to be? From one 
of our latest calls, I got the impression that this concept should not be 
used for characterising 'tokens' (e.g. lexical occurrences into texts), 
but rather 'types' (e.g. lexemes) into lexical resources, such as 
dictionaries. To me, there's a striking difference, since you can 
predicate very different properties on the two kind of entities. For 
instance, lexical occurrences (token) are usually grammatically 
determined, while lexical entries in a dictionary (type) may leave many 
grammatical attributes open (including the 'word class', in some case). 

> 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?
> 

Not at all, I think that in ordinary speech there are many lexical senses 
that do not commit to anything :-)

Anyway, this is a very technical question. In the current model, the 
ObjectProperty 'reference' ranges to 'Reference' (by inheritance from 
'isConceptualizationOf'). Should we opt for breaking formal links to other 
ontologies (semiotics.owl in this case), as I warmly recommend, how we 
could characterise the range of this very basic property?


Kind regards,

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
_________________________________________________ 
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
Societą con unico azionista
Societą soggetta all?attivitą di direzione e coordinamento di 
International Business Machines Corporation

(Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise 
above)
Received on Monday, 15 July 2013 16:19:25 UTC

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