Re: summary of state-of-play

Elena, all,

  well, I used "commitsTo" in the sense of Guarino in order to say that 
a certain symbol in an ontological vocabulary refers to (commits to) 
some conceptual relation in a conceptualization, the conceptualization 
being essentially "intensional" and not directly accessible (e.g. in the 
head of someone, implicit in a certain community).

I used commitTo to avoid using again something like "reference" which 
would otherwise become quite overloaded.

Aldo can elaborate on this much more than me, but I hope the intuition 
behind using commitsTo is clear now.

Along these lines, commitsTo can also be established between an 
ontological entity (extensional) and a skos:Concept (intensional)

But I agree with Aldo that skos:Concept is the more general class and 
that skos:Concepts need not be lexicalized. Under this understanding 
ontolex:LexicalConcept is a subclass of skos:Concept in the sense of 
being a special skos:Concept that is lexicalized.

Hope this clarifies my intuitions.

Best regards,

Philipp.

Am 25.06.13 13:40, schrieb Aldo Gangemi:
> Hi Elena,
>
> On Jun 25, 2013, at 1:19:49 PM , Elena Montiel Ponsoda 
> <elemontiel@gmail.com <mailto:elemontiel@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Dear Philipp, all,
>>
>> Thanks for the "state-of-play" document and the summary of the 
>> document at 
>> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Core_Model
>>
>> I just went through it and in general I agree with the model proposed.
>> I have two comments that we may discuss on Friday.
>>
>>   * what is the meaning of the "commitsTo" relation? Could it also be
>>     established between an OntologyEntity and a skos:Concept?
>>   * I am not sure I fully understand the relation between
>>     LexicalConcept and skos:Concept (sorry if you already discussed
>>     it!!). Wouldn't a LexicalConcept be also subsuming a
>>     skos:Concept? I think a LexicalConcept is somehow more general,
>>     am I mistaken?
>>
> Quickly: I think not. SKOS is very general and includes all sorts of 
> concepts, be them lexical or not.
> Aldo
>>
>> Talk to you on Friday!
>> Elena
>>
>> El 21/06/2013 15:30, Philipp Cimiano escribió:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>>  we had a very short meeting today. Apologies for the very late 
>>> announcement on my side. I will announce the meeting earlier next week.
>>>
>>> In any case, we agreed that it is good that the model as it stands 
>>> can accomodate both the view of Frames as Extensional Entitites / 
>>> Class (i.e. sets of situations) and the view as 
>>> intensional/cognitive Lexical Concepts.
>>>
>>> I feel that we need not to adopt any strong position towards any of 
>>> these ends as FrameNet has been anyway modelled by different people 
>>> in OWL/RDF already (Aldo, Alessandro, etc.) and it is certainly not 
>>> the main use of the ontolex model.
>>>
>>> In any case, the (short) minutes from today are here: 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2013/06/21-ontolex-minutes.html
>>>
>>> We will talk again next week at the usual time slot.
>>>
>>> Please all read my document and inspect the OWL ontology. We will 
>>> decide on this core very soon ;-)
>>>
>>> Have a good weekend,
>>>
>>> Philipp.
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Elena Montiel-Ponsoda
>> Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
>> Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
>> Facultad de Informática
>> Campus de Montegancedo s/n
>> Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, España
>> www.oeg-upm.net
>> Tel. (+34) 91 336 36 70
>> Fax  (+34) 91 352 48 19
>


-- 
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