- From: John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:16:06 +0200
- To: Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
- Cc: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@gmail.com>, public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAC5njqpQv2jsi_wXO7iUyW9KKMJar-zXpR=CvLgvr12vkvOpWw@mail.gmail.com>
So there appears to be a strong show of support for systematic names, I have added the into the Manchester OWL version of the model on the Wiki Regards, John On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Armando Stellato < stellato@info.uniroma2.it> wrote: > …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> 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 Friday, 26 July 2013 14:16:34 UTC