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

Re: SKOS compatibility

From: John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:06:13 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC5njqpexT3dswWSspNrQH6P3ApjjVL=FS2=eCVK2FZPzXmT5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
Cc: public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Hi Armando,




On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it
> wrote:

> Dear John,****
>
> ** **
>
> thanks for the proposal. I’ll go directly to the second point:****
>
> ** **
>
> so, I proposed this too in my reply to Philipp, and following what has
> been discussed:****
>
> ** **
>
> **1)      **We cannot directly have skosxl:[pref|alt|hidden]Label be
> subproperty of denotes^-1, because while we would probably like to see them
> pointing to LexicalEntries…****
>
> **2)      **…the class-correspondence should be: LexicalForm subclassOf
> skosxl:Label****
>
> ** **
>
> Would you then consider having something like:****
>
> ** **
>
> SubObjectPropertyOf( ****
>
>    ObjectPropertyChain( ontolex:preferredEntry ontolex:canonicalForm ) ***
> *
>
>    skosxl:prefLabel ****
>
>  )****
>
> ** **
>
> ?****
>
> ** **
>
> Now, one question: if I remember correctly, it has been mentioned that one
> problem in having ontolex:LexicalForm subclassOf skosxl:Label is that
> skosxl:literalForm is functional while ontolex:writtenRep is not. But it’s
> not clear to me (probably due to lack of examples or simply less discussion
> on the LexicalEntry/LexicalForm roles) while writtenRep should not be
> functional as well. I’ve got that the multitude of entries describing a
> ontology entity can be reached through different LexicalEntries (clear for
> everybody I think), and the multitude of tenses/morphologies etc.. can be
> obtained by different LexicalForms attached to a LexicalEntry. So far, so
> good (if I’m not missing anything), but then I suppose the LexicalForm
> should have really one and only one lexical representation too (thus
> functional too). Could you, in negative case, post me one example?
>
The issue is one of orthographic representations, that is spelling variants
between languages (e.g., theatre and theater) but more particularly also
the issue of pronunciation guides such as /ˈθiːətə(ɹ)/.

More particularly the mapping should be to lexical entries, I believe,
because they represent the core element of the OntoLex model, so it seems
natural to link there. This means of course that the properties I propose
do not give a one-to-one correspondence between SKOS and OntoLex but
instead that they give a good guideline for how people can fix up their
SKOS(-XL) model to be linguistically sound

Regards,
John

> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers,****
>
> ** **
>
> Armando****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* johnmccrae@gmail.com [mailto:johnmccrae@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *John
> McCrae
> *Sent:* Friday, July 19, 2013 5:26 PM
> *To:* public-ontolex
> *Subject:* SKOS compatibility****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi all,****
>
> ** **
>
> A couple of points I wanted to propose to enable the model to have a
> clearer compatibility with SKOS and SKOS-XL.****
>
> ** **
>
> Firstly, the use of rdfs:label on LexicalEntrys, is a technique that we
> have used previously so that we do not need to create a form node for each
> entry. E.g.,****
>
> ** **
>
> :Shisa a ontolex:LexicalEntry ;****
>
>   rdfs:label "shisa"@eng .****
>
> ** **
>
> Would be considered equivalent to****
>
> ** **
>
> :Shisa a ontolex:LexicalEntry ;****
>
>   ontolex:lexicalForm [****
>
>     ontolex:writtenRep "shisa"@eng ****
>
>   ] .****
>
> ** **
>
> There are two other alternatives here, either we do not have any such
> properties (specifying a form is then mandatory) or we introduce a new
> property in the OntoLex namespace that has the role. Note, one of the key
> issues here is that with OWL we cannot specify the equivalence between this
> property and the lexicalForm o writtenRep chain, so I would prefer to
> re-use rdfs:label, which has the correct semantics anyway****
>
> ** **
>
> Secondly, we should be able to indicate which entries are the preferred,
> alternative and deprecated lexicalizations of a given concept. For example,
> we could look into introducing a property which starts in the ontology and
> points to a lexical entry, e.g., something like this****
>
> ** **
>
> :Scope a ontolex:LexicalEntry ;****
>
>   ontolex:sense [ ontolex:reference dbpedia:Scope_(Charity) ] .****
>
> :Spastics_society a ontolex:LexicalEntry ;****
>
>   ontolex:sense [ ontolex:reference dbpedia:Scope_(Charity) ] .****
>
> ** **
>
> dbpedia:Scope_(Charity) ontolex:preferredEntry :Scope ;****
>
>   ontolex:hiddenEntry :Spastics_society .****
>
> ** **
>
> As such, these properties would each be sub-properties of the inverse of
> 'denotes'.****
>
> ** **
>
> Do these two proposals seem reasonable?****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,****
>
> John****
>
> ** **
>
> PS SKOS recommend using hiddenLabel for spelling mistakes. I don't think
> we should support this in the meaning of hiddenEntry instead with the idea
> being that hidden terms are simply outdated (deprecatedEntry may be a
> better name for the property if we do not wish to follow SKOS).****
>
Received on Monday, 22 July 2013 10:06:42 UTC

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