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

Re: Linking to SKOS

From: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:46:46 +1100
Cc: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>, "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7BE54E81-70A6-4FCF-8A1B-0B43B21320A2@cnr.it>
To: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Some comments below

On Oct 18, 2013, at 6:05:38 PM , Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:

> Dear all,
> before the summer break, we discussed some problems in linking the ontolex model to SKOS. I would like to make an initial proposal along three lines:
> 1) SKOS says: " The class skosxl:Label is a special class of lexical entities." (see http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#xl-Label). The particularity is that skosxl:Labels have a only 1 restriction on "literalForm", i.e. there is exactly one literal form for skosxl:Labels. Clearly, such a restriction is compatible with our model. Nevertheless, we could state that "skosxl:Label" is a subClassOf ontolex:LexicalEntry. It conforms to the first sentence at http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#xl-Label and documents the fact that skosxl:Labels are very specific kinds of lexical entities (entries) that make a number of assumptions that our more general class "LexicalEntry" does not make. As we say that skosxl:Label is a SubClass we do not have any implications and there are no implications from our side. The implication is more on the side of the people who use both the SKOS and the ontolex vocabulary. But the effect is nice I think, i.e. all skosxl:Labels become ontolex:LexicalEntries. In practice, we could also write a converter from SKOS to ontolex that converts every Label into exactly one LexicalEntry. Not ideal, but useful to create a bridge between both models. 

Seems fine and appropriate

> 2) ontolex:LexicalConcept is defined as "the mental representation of the shared meaning of a collection of senses that can be exchanged in many contexts without substantially changing the meaning". We could definitely argue that ontolex:LexicalConcept is thus a subClassOf skos:Concept, which is "an idea or notion; a unit of thought.". I see no overcommitment here.

Same with me. On another ground, I tend to see also lexical concepts and concepts in general as subclasses of semiotics:Meaning, but it's not relevant to define such link in the lemon-ontolex context.

> 3) On skosxl:altLabel, skosxl:prefLabel and skosxl:hiddenLabel, what we could do is introduce an underspecified property ontolex:label
> and than say that skosxl:altLabel, skosxl:prefLabel and skosxl:hiddenLabel are subclasses of this underspecified label class that we introduce.
> Then we could add the following chain:
>  contains^- o sense^- o form o writtenForm subPropertyOf ontolex:label
> With that we would make clear that we can map our writtenForms to labels of some kind, but that the decision whether this is a prefLabel, altLabel and hiddenLabel is underspecified. 
> Pragmatically we could thus even write a converter form ontolex to SKOS that uses this underspecified property ontolex:label.

This should work

> OK, all from me for now. The emails I sent are long, but I think that the issue warrants a deeper discussion.
> Talk to all of you this afternoon at 15:00 (CEST).

Hope I could make it. I'm in Australia at a dinner and for me that will be midnight.

> Best regards,
> 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
> Universitšt Bielefeld
> Inspiration 1
> 33619 Bielefeld

Received on Friday, 25 October 2013 07:47:14 UTC

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