summary of state-of-play

Dear all,

   apologies for the silence in the last two weeks. I have been 
extremely busy with the organization of ESWC. Now I am getting back to 
various activities.

I have written a document that tries to summarizes the current agreement 
that we have about the core of the ontolex model.
Please find this document attached. Feel free to comment on my view of 
where we stand so far.

I would like to raise three issues that I believe we have not yet 
considered so far:

1) Why do we not use the same property (i.e. "denotes" both between the 
Lexical Sense and the Ontology Entity as well as between the Lexical 
Entry and the Ontology Entity). This would certainly simplify the model 
and only require one property more when using the lex. sense as mediator 
between the lexical entry and the ontology entity. Note that the reason 
is not a technical one as OWL allows left-recursive and right-recursive 
property chains, that is, we could say that:  sense o denotes 
\sqsubseteq denotes in OWL.

2) To make clear that linking to lexical concepts from legacy resources 
(e.g. Synsets of WordNet) is really optional, I propose that we reverse 
the directionality of the arrow and add a relation "subsumes" from the 
Lexical Concept to the Lexical Sense. In this sense, a synset subsumes a 
certain lexical sense. This makes it clear that the "decoration" (to use 
a term from Armando) of an ontology with synsets or other lexical 
concepts is not critical to the main path and really "optional".

3) Finally, concerning my relation marked with the three question marks 
in my document. I really wonder if we should aim at relating a lexical 
concept to an ontological concept or we should simply be agnostic with 
respect to how this link is made. Some people might want to use 
owl:equivalentClass or skos:match etc. So why not leaving this simply open?

I propose we skip once more this week's telecon and get back to our 
normal working mode next week. I will write an email in due time.

In the meanwhile, I would be happy to discuss my summary per email.

Best regards,

Philipp.

-- 
Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
Semantic Computing Group
Excellence Cluster - Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
University of Bielefeld

Phone: +49 521 106 12249
Fax: +49 521 106 12412
Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de

Room H-127
Morgenbreede 39
33615 Bielefeld