Re: summary of state-of-play

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Philipp Cimiano <
cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:

> 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.
>
I can think of several reasons why not (it is ambiguous, confusing and
technically harder to work with). I'm not sure I understand why though? You
have the same structure and I don't really see how reusing a name from
another structure would make that any "simpler."

>
> 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".
>
 There have been a number of namings for properties suggested, we should
collect the options and discuss them.

For "subsumes", I don't really like it as it suggests some kind of
more/less specific relation so would often be misintepreted.

>
> 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?
>
Well, it is a key goal of the CG to describe how we link lexical resources
(including legacy resources) to ontologies, and this includes the
synset/concept hierachy of WordNet. We discussed the use of skos:exactMatch
to represent this thoroughly in the last two telcos and the consensus was
that we introduce a new property for this (Model 1 here
http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2013.10.05,_15-16_pm_CET
)

Can we find some time this week to discuss things and put into place a
basis model for further discussion?

Regards,
John

>
> 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 <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
>
> Room H-127
> Morgenbreede 39
> 33615 Bielefeld
>
>