W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ontolex@w3.org > November 2013

RE: Linking to SKOSXL (following our call)

From: Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:46:10 +0100
To: <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002901ced98e$21d602a0$658207e0$@info.uniroma2.it>
Hi Philipp (thanks for the "not long at all".I feared it was :-) ),


The only issue I see is that LexicalEntry would inherit the following
restriction: restriction on skosxl:literalForm cardinality exactly 1

But I think this can be justified by clearly stating that
skosxl:literalForms are different from our Forms.



Exactly, or at least, this is the non-OWL-allowed inference I had in mind:


for each structure like:

    <?x a ontolex:LexicalEntry>  --> ontolex:canonicalForm -->
<a_ontolex:Form>  --> ontolex:writtenRep  --> <?l a literal>


We have a corresponding:

    <?x a skosxl:Label>  --> skosxl:literalForm  --> <?l a literal>
(sorry: I wrote by mistake skosxl:canonicalForm in the previous email)



We could indeed infer the literalForm from the canonicalForm (possible)? but
this might lead to inconsistencies as we infer a different from that the one



I'm not sure I see the inconsistency here. I would tend to say that at least
the generation of a <?x a skosxl:Label>-->skosxl:literalForm--><?l a
literal> is not wrong from any <?x a ontolex:LexicalEntry>  -->
ontolex:canonicalForm --> <a_ontolex:Form>  --> ontolex:writtenRep  --> <?l
a literal>

.but I could be easily missing something else.


I propose we talk about this on the telco on Nov. 8th. 







Received on Monday, 4 November 2013 18:46:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:36:36 UTC