Re: summary of state-of-play

Philipp,

If I remember well, the notion of 'ontological commitment' is also known 
in Quine's philosophy, denoting the kind of thing that must exist in order 
for an expression to denote something.  If this is also our notion, then I 
think that the arrow should lead from the lexical class to the ontological 
one, not the other way around.

Some question about the model.

Is 'denotes' equivalent to sense°reference? If yes, it should be noted 
somehow.

The relation 'subsumes' is obscure to me: is it the inverse of is-a? 

Is 'evokes' (whatever it means) related to sense°inverse-of-subsumes? 

Thank you and apologize if the answer is already there ..


Regards,

Guido Vetere
Manager, Center for Advanced Studies IBM Italia
_________________________________________________
Rome                                     Trento
Via Sciangai 53                       Via Sommarive 18
00144 Roma, Italy                   38123 Povo in Trento
+39 (0)6 59662137 

Mobile: +39 3357454658
_________________________________________________



Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> 
25/06/2013 15:04

To
public-ontolex@w3.org
cc

Subject
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> 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

IBM Italia S.p.A.
Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI) 
Cap. Soc. euro 347.256.998,80
C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
Società con unico azionista
Società soggetta all?attività di direzione e coordinamento di 
International Business Machines Corporation

(Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise 
above)