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

RE: Inverse property names

From: Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:47:16 +0200
To: "'Aldo Gangemi'" <aldo.gangemi@gmail.com>, "'John McCrae'" <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Cc: "'public-ontolex'" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Message-ID: <04ae01ce86c0$73f25ff0$5bd71fd0$@info.uniroma2.it>
.to me.always much better to have a really evocative name. It is also true
that here we have a proliferation of names which also, sometimes, are
difficult to associate to the right <class,class> pair, and in this case
systematic names help to keep the number of names low, as they are a ^-1
rewritten form of the names of their inverse properties.

However, one that I really would not like to see this way is "isDenotedBy",
and the reason is the same for which I was really advocating the existence
of this denotes^-1: this would be a very common property indeed, and people
would like to see a "more direct name" than isXXXOf or isXXXBy.

To me lexicalization is ok.

 

And to bind it with the SKOS discussion, I would see something like:

 

SubObjectPropertyOf( 

   ObjectPropertyChain( ontolex:prefLexicalization ontolex:canonicalForm ) 

   ontolex:prefLabel 

 )

 

With:

ontolex:prefLexicalization rdfs:subPropertyOf ontolex:lexicalization

ontolex:prefLabel owl:equivalentProperty skosxl:prefLabel

ontolex:Form owl:equivalentClass skosxl:Label

 

though I would maybe need to understand better all the possible
constructions about ontolex:Form, to check if this can be done (see my
questions on the possibility of having ontolex:writtenRep functional.

 

Cheers,

 

Armando

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Aldo Gangemi [mailto:aldo.gangemi@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 8:25 PM
To: John McCrae
Cc: Aldo Gangemi; public-ontolex
Subject: Re: Inverse property names

 

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 <mailto: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>

 
Received on Monday, 22 July 2013 09:47:55 UTC

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