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

Re: Inverse property names

From: John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:16:06 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC5njqpQv2jsi_wXO7iUyW9KKMJar-zXpR=CvLgvr12vkvOpWw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
Cc: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@gmail.com>, public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
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

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