- From: GUADALUPE AGUADO DE CEA <guadalupe.aguado@upm.es>
- Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 19:51:54 +0200
- To: <public-ontolex@w3.org>
I agree with Aldo. Very much in favour of systematic names Thanks, John Lupe El 2013-07-19 20:25, Aldo Gangemi escribió: > Definitively in favor of systematic names, and definitely against > names like "sememe" ;) > Aldo > > On Jul 19, 2013, at 5:42:51 PM , John McCrae > <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Quick show of interest in the induction of names for the inverse of >> existing properties: Do we wish to have systematic names for each >> inverse properties or distinct names. So for example >> >> Systematic Names: >> >> ISCONTAINEDBY is inverse of CONTAINS >> ISDENOTEDBY is inverse of DENOTES >> ISREFERENCEOF is inverse of REFERENCE >> ISSENSEOF is inverse of SENSE >> ISCONCEPTOF is inverse of CONCEPT >> ISEVOKEDBY is inverse of EVOKES >> >> Distinct names (for example only): >> >> MEMBER is inverse of CONTAINS >> LEXICALIZATION is inverse of DENOTES >> SEMEME is inverse of REFERENCE >> LEXEME is inverse of SENSE >> ENTITY is inverse of CONCEPT >> EXPRESSION is inverse of EVOKES >> >> Does anyone have strong opinions either way about this? >> >> Regards, >> John <OntoLex Inverse.png> -- GUADALUPE AGUADO DE CEA Universidad Politecnica de Madrid
Received on Saturday, 20 July 2013 17:52:24 UTC