Re: documents

Hi Philipp,

1. I am not sure what you are trying to say about lexical variants, it
seems very similar to Elena and Jorge's existing proposal, if I am not
mistaken.

2. The SKOS-XL mapping seems straightforward and in line with our
discussion. The issue I have is that nothing should map to SKOS's "hidden"
label category, which is used for "character string to be accessible to
applications performing text-based indexing and search operations, but
would *not* like that label to be visible otherwise." Firstly, feminine
forms of nouns would be alternative not hidden in SKOS. Secondly, I do not
think we need such a broad category in the Ontolex model, that is we do not
need to model frequent misspellings except for  deliberate misspellings,
and other reasons for hiding labels in SKOS can be better described
according to their pragmatic restrictions (e.g., antiquated, vulgar
terminology etc.)

Regards,
John


On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Philipp Cimiano <
cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>  to provide more food for thought, I attach two documents:
>
> 1) lexicalVariantsWithReification: describing the reified variant for
> expressing lexical variants. The drawback is that we need many more
> properties to specify the role of each LexicalEntry.
>
> 2) ontolex_skos: elaborating one example taken from the IFLA example on
> the Wiki showing how we could convert ontolex-lemon to SKOS models given
> that we add some pragmatic information to it.
>
> Have fun looking at the examples.
>
> Comments welcome!
>
> Philipp.
>
> --
>
> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
>
> Phone: +49 521 106 12249
> Fax: +49 521 106 12412
> Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>
> Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS)
> Raum 2.307
> Universität Bielefeld
> Inspiration 1
> 33619 Bielefeld
>
>