Re: doubt about "Synset / Concept" class

On May 8, 2013, at 11:56 AM, Philipp Cimiano wrote:
> 
> 
> Treating skos:Concept and owl:Class as different types of meaning seems too subtle for people who want to use the model in practice as they will always wonder which is the right property to use.


Agreed. 
> 
> Philipp.
> 
> Am 08.05.13 13:08, schrieb John McCrae:
>> Hi Aldo,
>> 
>> Names in the previous example are not fixed of course. I also don't like "means" that much I just haven't got a better alternative yet. (synset is too WordNet-specific, means/meaning/concept are too broad)
>> 
>> Regards,
>> John
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it> wrote:
>> Hi, I agree with John, we really seem on the same wave now :), in fact I agree with Model 2 being far better.
>> Only, should we really use ontolex:means to link senses and synsets? It's a bit too broad as a name for a specific relation like that, isn't it?
>> 
>> Aldo
>> 
>> On May 8, 2013, at 6:37:22 AM , John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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/
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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

Alessandro Oltramari
Research Associate
Psychology Department
Carnegie Mellon University
5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh PA 15213
Tel.:  +1-412-268-6284
Mobile: +1-412-689-1514	
Fax.: +1-412-268-2798
Homepage: http://fms.psy.cmu.edu/member/aoltrama 
Twitter: oltramale 
"There’s no such thing as the unknown– only things temporarily hidden, temporarily not understood.” (Capt. James Tiberius Kirk)