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

Re: [ontolex] core module, couple of doubts

From: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 07:57:22 +1100
Cc: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@gmail.com>, "John P. McCrae" <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es>, "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6E0CCE28-0C19-470C-84BD-4B99DF4D2EA0@gmail.com>
To: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Yes, I agree. 
Glosses are literals that provide a value to a lexical sense. 
Imports are important mainly for OWL reasoning, visualization completeness, and documentation, but not strictly necessary in the large.

On a digression, consider that glosses belong to a more general class of literals that "valorize" symbolic entities found in text, and that class includes text spans from actual texts as well. I do not think lemon-ontolex has a position yet on this, but it should, specially vs. proposed vocabularies such as NIF and Earmark (the last one uses semiotics.owl btw).

Ciao
Aldo

On Oct 19, 2013, at 6:21:54 PM , Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:

> John, all,
> 
> Yes, this is also what we agreed upon in yesterday's telco.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Philipp
> 
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> 
> Am 19.10.2013 um 06:19 schrieb "John P. McCrae" <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>:
> 
>> Hi Jorge,
>> 
>> The first issue has already been discussed: glosses will be something that can be defined on the lexical sense and a module will define the exact property for this.
>> 
>> As for the imports, I think you may be right that we shouldn't import SKOS and Semiotics.owl as we are not actually building on top of these ontologies but merely stating equivalences, just linking by URIs should suffice
>> 
>> Regards,
>> John
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> I'll try to summarise a couple of doubts I have about the
>> lemon-ontolex core module:
>> 
>> 1. What if we have to support long descriptions? In principle lemon
>> supports lexical entries (which can be compound words), but what about
>> long descriptions? i.e., things that typically come in rdfs:comment.
>> Where is the limit, btw? Now I am thinking on terms that do not have a
>> proper translation into another language and a description is used
>> instead. For instance, "gazpacho"@es -> "tomato-based, vegetable soup,
>> traditionally served cold, originating in the southern Spanish region
>> of Andalucia"@en. Can we represent this as a (long) written
>> representation of a lexical entry? Otherwise, what is the solution?
>> 
>> 2. I inspected the owl file for the core model and I see these imports:
>> 
>> Import: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core>
>> Import: <http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/semiotics.owl>
>> 
>> Are they really needed? Can't we just put them as prefixes, i.e.,
>> linking them without importing them?
>> Actually, I assume that when the "linking module" is ready the links
>> to semiotics/skos existent now in the core will be moved there, right?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Jorge
>> 
>> 


Received on Thursday, 24 October 2013 20:57:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:36:35 UTC