Re: about Lexical Linked Data and notable lexical resources

Just stick to Linked Data practices. When creating new data or vocabularies, link them to existing ones, do not try to substitute them!
The pro-change arguments are bad practice: the bare fact of having a new vocabulary for interoperability does not mean that everything made in the past needs to be refactorised ;)
Re: exposition of OntoLex, sure it's important, but it can be exposed much better (and with less effort) by cross-linking resources, which will show its intended capabilities.
Concerning WordNet versions, a 3.0 port already exists from VU Amsterdam, and they use the same vocabulary from 2.0.
For the name, there are good reasons in both groups, and it's hard to take a final decision. An alternative solution (that I like) is to extract a real core vocabulary with only basic semiotic distinctions, and call it OntoLex, while the Lemon legacy (mostly about more specific properties and classes) may still be called Lemon.
Aldo

On Sep 13, 2013, at 4:39:16 PM , "Armando Stellato" <stellato@info.uniroma2.it> wrote:

> Hi all,
>  
> Today, following the finalization of the core module, the agenda was quite dynamic, with some core points (e.g. name of the vocabulary, assessing the list of modules to be developed etc..) and time for raising new issues or retrieving open ones.
>  
> I remember that one thing left appended (or at least, I recall hearing different opinions on the matter) was:
>  
> “notable resources, like WordNet and FrameNet”: should we only map them, or should we make a new version, possibly with direct references to the OntoLex1 vocabulary?
>  
> There are pro and contra for both approaches.
> -          PRO-Keep: Solidity of the existing versions: for instance, as Aldo says about Wordnet: “it’s already out there under the W3C umbrella”, so better not to change anything carved into stone (though it’s still in working draft am I right?)
> -          PRO-Change: Promotion of OntoLex: one thing is to have a mapping module telling how WordNet/Framenet is seen from an Ontolex perspective, one thing is to express WordNet/Framenet in terms of Ontolex directly inside the WordNet/Framenet resource. People accessing these resources will know about Ontolex.
> -          PRO-Keep: even from a barely terminological point of view, it is important to keep the original descriptors from these resources and transpose them into RDF. e.g. a WordNet synset is a kind of ontolex:LexicalConcept; ontolex:LexicalConcept guarantess interoperability and tells how to “attach” wordnet descriptors to ontology by using ontolex vocabulary, nonetheless, it is important to provide a “Synset” class specific to WordNet to make it clear to WordNet users what those objects are by means of the WordNet terminology.
> -          PRO-Change: despite the above is true, still whenever possible, a direct use of Ontolex constructs would make resources more explicitly “connected” and their reuse more “evident” in terms of Ontolex principles
> -          …and so on…
>  
> Now, we had interesting feedback from Piek Vossen (EuroWordNet) and other people involved in the development of these resources, and also comments and wishes about changes wrt existing versions (I recall one about URI namings for WordNet synsets, for instance).
>  
> I imagine also that there are viable “grey” hypotheses, laying in the middle, like providing new versions of these resources (e.g. a WordNet 3.0 RDF porting, whereas the current one is 2.0) which, while not “breaking” any already-defined construct, could still embed these mappings to OntoLex, bring some strongly required change, etc…, while not “betraying” its original nature (so, just an update and not a rewriting…)
>  
> So, the question is:
>  
> Leave everything as it is, and provide mappings in our OntoLex world, or try to maximize the awareness of Ontolex directly “at the source of the resources”, possibly (re)working them as much as necessary ?
> …or any anything in the middle…case by case…
>  
> Waiting for feedback :)
>  
> Armando
>  
> P.S: I made all examples about WordNet, as I’m not proficient enough for providing detailed examples about FrameNet, VerbNet, or other pertinent resources..
>  
> 1.       I used the name OntoLex, but it’s just the fairest neutral name I thought to use here while waiting for the final one; there is still a final decision to be summed up from our votes about the naming of our model: be it Ontolex, Lemon2 or whatever else..
>  
>  
> --------------------------------------------------
>  
> Ing. Armando Stellato, PhD
> AI Research Group,
> Dept. of Enterprise Engineering
> University of Roma, Tor Vergata
> Via del Politecnico 1 00133 ROMA (ITALY)
> tel: +39 06 7259 7330 (office, room A1-14);
>      +39 06 7259 7332 (lab)
> fax: +39 06 7259 7460
> e_mail: stellato@info.uniroma2.it
>  
> --------------------------------------------------
>