Re: telco this Friday, 15:00 (CET)

Dear Philipp, all

I won't be able to join you tomorrow. Elena will attend the telco.

Best
lupe





2013/7/18 Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>

> Dear all,
>
>  first of all, this is a gentle reminder that we will have our regular
> telco this Friday at 15:00 (CET). I am quite happy that this time slot
> seems to suit many people.
>
> There have been some final issues raised that we need to settle. I try to
> summarize them here (apologies for my bad response time in the last days,
> other things have kept me busy!). I think we are at a point were we have
> the issues on the table and simply need to vote on them. I think the most
> important ones are the following three (I list some other minor issues
> below)
>
> 1) Strong vs. weak linking
>
> Guido has recommended that we do not create formal links to other models,
> e.g. by equivalentClass or subClassOf axioms, but we use "weak" and
> "informal" links through rdfs:comment and the like.
> From a SW perspective, this approach is non-orthodox I think. The whole SW
> is about formalization. Informal links can not be used by machines to align
> datasets, do distributed querying etc. Informal links in this sense are
> only documentation and for human inspection and reasoning. This is exactly
> what the SW wants to avoid, i.e. that we always have to appeal to intuition
> of people ;-)
> I do not have a very strong position on this issue, but if some of us
> would still give a few cents for the SW idea, then we should go for a more
> formal and thus stronger linking. Just my two cents.
>
> 2) Lexical Entry rdf:subClassOf semio:Expression?
>
> We all agree that Lexical Entries are lemmas and thus essentialy types
> that can be instantiated in a text, thus becoming a token informally
> speaking.
> I have no strong position here as well. If Also says that types in this
> sense can also be semio:Expressions then I am fine.
>
> 3) Formalization of range of "reference"
>
> We all agree that reference can have owl:Class, owl:Individual or
> owl:Property (object and datatype as range).
> Aldo/Armando have brought in the possiblity of also owl:Ontology to be in
> the range. I do not see the need for the latter honestly. Of course, there
> can be ontologies that axiomatize single sentences, but then the lexical
> entry does not "denote" or "reference" the whole ontology but one class or
> property in that ontology which is axiomatized using a number of helper
> classes and axioms.
>
> We can formalize the range, fine. But let's assume that people mis-use our
> model, they will for sure! They might use all sort of things as
> "references". We would then infer that these things are owl:Class OR
> owl:Individual OR owl:Propery OR owl:Ontology.
> First, this inference is quite useless in my view as we are still left
> with uncertainty about the specific status of the entity in question.
> Second, this might have unwanted implications, possibly leading to
> inconsistencies.
> I do think that we should follow here the principle of "graceful
> degradation" in the sense that the system wil not break if you mis-use it a
> bit. Actually, to close the cycle, I just that this same argument could be
> used to argue against more formal links in general (see my point 1). I
> apologie for this inconsistency in my thinking. I wish I could indeed
> always consistent with myself ;-)
>
> On the telco on Friday, I will call for votes on these three isuess,
> allowing anyone to summarize their position at the beginning of the
> discussion of each of these points.
>
> An email summarizing other minor issues will follow:
>
> 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 <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
>
> Room H-127
> Morgenbreede 39
> 33615 Bielefeld
>
>
>