Re: doubt about "Synset / Concept" class

Hi Jorge, all,

Thanks for your comment, I agree this is an issue we should discuss. I
think that it is clearly wrong to continue to treat skos:Concepts as
ontological elements, they aren't and we shouldn't really confuse them. The
question of whether we should still use SKOS terminologies as systems of
reference for the model also seems clear to me (of course we should).

The question then boils down to this essential question: do we use the same
property to reference both a skos:Concept and an ontology entity?

This leads to two variation on the model:

Model 1. (Same property)

With synsets

:corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 --ontolex:means-> wordnet:corn_n_xxx *
--ontolex:conceptualizes->* fao:Corn (a skos:Concept)
:corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 --ontolex:means-> wordnet:corn_n_xxx
--ontolex:conceptualizes-> dbpedia:Corn (a owl:Class)

Without synsets

:corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 *--ontolex:reference->* fao:Corn (a
skos:Concept)
:corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 --ontolex:reference-> dbpedia:Corn (a
owl:Class)

Model 2. (Different property)

With synsets

:corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 --ontolex:means-> wordnet:corn_n_xxx *
--skos:exactMatch->* fao:Corn (a skos:Concept)
:corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 --ontolex:means-> wordnet:corn_n_xxx
--ontolex:conceptualizes-> dbpedia:Corn (a owl:Class)

Without synsets

:corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 *--ontolex:means->* fao:Corn (a
skos:Concept)
:corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 --ontolex:reference-> dbpedia:Corn (a
owl:Class)

With further linking valid of

fao:Corn --ontolex:conceptualizes-> dbpedia:Corn


I prefer model two as it makes a clearer distinction between terminologies
and ontologies, doesn't require linking two SKOS concepts with an ontolex
property (which we should avoid as it is not our job to fix SKOS) and
allows us to define a natural property for linking terminologies to
ontologies.

Regards,
John



On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es> wrote:

> Dear Philipp, all
>
> I am not able to join the telco today, sorry. But let me to formulate
> a quick question about John's model
> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/File:John-modelling.png);
> maybe you can treat it today.
> Following the previous discussions I can understand the inclusion of
> the new class "Synset / Concept". My doubt is: despite the fact that
> skos concepts could be represented with this new class, can we
> alternatively continuing treating skos concepts (of external skos
> ontologies) as "ontology entities"? (as in the IFLA example presented
> last week). For me this option is very natural, fully compliant with
> R3 "semantics by reference" and we shouldn't lose it.
>
> Best regards,
> Jorge
>
>
> 2013/5/2 Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>:
> > Dear all,
> >
> >  this is a gentle reminder that we will have our regular ontolex telco
> > tomorrow.
> >
> > I intend to discuss the model proposed by John on the basis of the
> > contributions of all of you.
> > I would like to see if there is a chance that we agree on this model as a
> > building block for the further work.
> >
> > Here is a link to the conference metadata including access details:
> >
> >
> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2013.03.05,_15-16_pm_CET
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jorge Gracia, PhD
> Ontology Engineering Group
> Artificial Intelligence Department
> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
> http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~jgracia/
>
>