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

name of the ontolex model

From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 07:46:46 +0200
Message-ID: <5237ECC6.2070908@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
To: Francis Bond <bond@ieee.org>
CC: John McCrae <johnmccrae@gmail.com>, Alessandro Oltramari <aoltrama@andrew.cmu.edu>, Gil FRANCOPOULO <gil.francopoulo@wanadoo.fr>, Guido Vetere <gvetere@it.ibm.com>, "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>, Guadalupe Aguado de Cea <guadalupe.aguado@upm.es>
Dear all,

  regarding the name of the model, I agree with Francis Bond here. As it 
has turned out, the ontolex model we are currently developing really 
subsumes the lemon model in the sense of extending it with a number of 
properties, at least what the core parts of both models are concerned.

So while the ontolex model is definitely new and based on a broader 
consensus, it is still very similar to the original lemon model that 
many people on this group have offered as input to the work of this 
community group.

It turns out that much more people have adopted lemon than originally 
expected, partly because some people have been quite successful in 
lobbying, but that is exactly what is expected to happen in 
pre-standardization activities.

So I would say that this group has a chance: the chance of building on 
an existing community that will set an important baseline that we can 
jump upon to make sure that our model receives wide adoption.

By coming up with a totally different name, we might loose this 
community of early adopters (we might not, I concede, but there is a 
risk clearly).

I think that lemon2 (proposed by me) and lemon-w3c (proposed by Aldo) 
are good compromises in this direction as they clearly indicate that we 
are talking here about an extended version of the lemon model, which, as 
it turns out, is what we have yielded by now. However, assuming that one 
day our model will become a W3C standard, the w3c suffix will be 
redudant as we might anyway have w3c.org in the namespace.

I also like the proposal of John very much of calling the core we have 
been developing lemon-ontolex and then the other modules: lemon-syntax, 
lemon-morph, lemon-lexnet, lemon-lime etc. I find this very chique an a 
good compromise actually. This is in line with our clear vote for 
fostering a modular approach.

Having said this, I would like to challenge Guido, Alessandro and Gil to 
argue against this proposal ;-) I challenge you also to make proposals 
how me make sure that we do not loose the early adopters that could 
potentially be confused by a new standard with a new name.

Just my two cents on the discussion so far.

Philipp.

Am 17.09.13 03:47, schrieb Francis Bond:
> I would also vote for keeping the name the same. I find having 
> multiple names for similar things much more confusing than calling 
> incremental improvements with the same name :-).
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 6:21 PM, John McCrae <johnmccrae@gmail.com 
> <mailto:johnmccrae@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi all,
>
>     I think Gil puts the issue quite well, renaming would be a "fresh
>     start". I just don't think we need a "fresh start" for several
>     reasons... firstly that the "lemon" brand is proving quite
>     successful, entirely due to the hard work of many members of this
>     group.
>
>     Secondly, the model is not fundamentally new but builds on the
>     existing lemon core model, see attached diagram to illustrate my
>     point. I don't think there should be need for confusion between
>     the models as they are fundamentally iterations in the same direction.
>
>     Finally, looking to the future development of the model, I first
>     note we are a long way behind our original schedule. As it seems
>     that we have ended up more or less building on the work of Lemon,
>     I suggest we take this as a template for the module work. i.e.,
>     take as a basis the existing modules in Lemon (where extant) and
>     then discuss how to improve them.
>
>     Taking this in mind perhaps the best proposal would be that of
>     Aldo, where Lemon is used for the wider context of the model
>     created by the group and OntoLex used for this specific "core"
>     part of the model. Thus this core model would be "Lemon OntoLex"
>     and the modules would take names such as "Lemon Syntax", "Lemon
>     Metadata" (or "Lemon Lime")
>
>     Regards,
>     John
>
>
>     On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Alessandro Oltramari
>     <aoltrama@andrew.cmu.edu <mailto:aoltrama@andrew.cmu.edu>> wrote:
>
>         As mentioned in a previous message, I agree with Guido and
>         Gil's stance.
>         Apologies for not calling in today.
>         Best,
>
>         Alessandro
>
>         On Sep 13, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Gil FRANCOPOULO wrote:
>
>>         Dear all,
>>
>>
>>         I agree with Guido.
>>
>>
>>         The new model is broader, defined with different people,
>>         under a different administrative umbrella, so this is different.
>>
>>
>>         Using the name "lemon" is confusing.
>>
>>
>>         In the future, if somebody says "lemon", we need to ask: what
>>         "lemon" are you talking about ? The old one or the new one.
>>
>>
>>         Using the term "ontolex", means a fresh and clean start, for
>>         new adventures...
>>
>>
>>         Best,
>>
>>         Gil Francopoulo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>             > Message du 13/09/13 14:45
>>             > De : "Guido Vetere"
>>             > A : "public-ontolex@w3.org <mailto:public-ontolex@w3.org>"
>>             > Copie à : "Philipp Cimiano" , "Guadalupe Aguado de Cea"
>>             , johnmccrae@gmail.com <mailto:johnmccrae@gmail.com>
>>             > Objet : Re: ontolex telco tomorrow 15:00 CET
>>             >
>>             > Dear all,
>>             >
>>             > although, as Shakespeare, said "a rose by any other
>>             name would smell as sweet", I think that names matter. I
>>             think that keeping 'lemon' (or a variant) would suggest
>>             that the work we are doing is basically a follow-on of
>>             the Lemon initiative, which, at the time the group has
>>             been established, was not the case, at least in my
>>             understanding. Hence, I think that keeping the original
>>             'ontolex' name is a better option.
>>             >
>>             > I'm unable to attend the call this evening, sorry about
>>             that.
>>             >
>>             > Regards,
>>             >
>>             > Guido Vetere
>>             > Manager, Center for Advanced Studies IBM Italia
>>             > _________________________________________________
>>             > Rome             Trento
>>             > Via Sciangai 53         Via Sommarive 18
>>             > 00144 Roma, Italy       38123 Povo in Trento
>>             > +39 (0)6 59662137 <tel:%2B39%20%280%296%2059662137>
>>             >
>>             > Mobile: +39 3357454658 <tel:%2B39%203357454658>
>>             > _________________________________________________
>>             >
>>             >
>>             >
>>             *John McCrae *
>>             > Sent by: johnmccrae@gmail.com
>>             <mailto:johnmccrae@gmail.com>
>>
>>             > 13/09/2013 11:43
>>
>>             	
>>             To
>>             Guadalupe Aguado de Cea 	
>>             cc
>>             Philipp Cimiano , "public-ontolex@w3.org
>>             <mailto:public-ontolex@w3.org>" 	
>>             Subject
>>             Re: ontolex telco tomorrow 15:00 CET
>>
>>
>>             >
>>
>>
>>             >
>>
>>
>>             >
>>             >
>>             > Hi all,
>>             >
>>             > I apologise I will also not be able to attend as I am
>>             travelling today. I wanted to make a quick couple of
>>             points about the naming of the model.
>>             >
>>             > Firstly, the model is not drastically new in fact in
>>             terms of URIs 15 of the properties are exactly the same
>>             as they are in the original /lemon/ core where as only 9
>>             are new introductions, and 4 are not carried over from
>>             the ontolex core (although these should be included in
>>             modules).
>>             >
>>             > Also, I am here at RANLP and /lemon/ has been mentioned
>>             in several talks including one of the keynotes, at
>>             tutorials and many times in the NLP&LOD workshop. Many
>>             people who I talked to about the naming of the model
>>             seemed not keen accept a change of name.
>>             >
>>             > For these two reasons I feel that we really should to
>>             keep lemon in the name but would be happy with Lemon2 or
>>             W3C-Lemon as a name
>>             >
>>             > Regards,
>>             > John
>>             >
>>             >
>>             > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Guadalupe Aguado de
>>             Cea <guadalupe.aguado@upm.es
>>             <mailto:guadalupe.aguado@upm.es>> wrote:
>>             > Dear all,
>>             >
>>             > I won't be able to join the telco as I have a meeting
>>             in another town.
>>             > As for the name of the model, the last 2 suggestions
>>             proposed by Phillipp and Aldo: lemon2, and lemon-W3C
>>             could be Ok, though I'm more inclined to the first one,
>>             lemon2. Exactly for the reasons given by Philipp.
>>             >
>>             > I know that Elena & Jorge will attend the telco, so
>>             they'll tell me about the commitments and the modules..
>>             > Best regards
>>             >
>>             > Lupe
>>             >
>>             > El 12/09/2013 14:38, Philipp Cimiano escribió:
>>             >
>>             > Dear all,
>>             >
>>             >    this is a gentle reminder that we will have our
>>             regular ontolex telco tomorrow Friday at the regular time.
>>             >
>>             > See access details here:
>>             http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2013.13.09,_15-16_pm_CET
>>             >
>>             > The agenda from my side is as follows:
>>             >
>>             > 1) Modules: decide which modules need to be developed
>>             and which use cases will drive them, fix responsibles for
>>             module development
>>             > 2) Name of the model: discuss different points of view
>>             > 3) Linking: what to link to
>>             >
>>             > I look forward to talking to you all on Friday.
>>             >
>>             > Best regards,
>>             >
>>             > Philipp.
>>             >
>>             >
>>             >
>>             > --
>>             > Guadalupe Aguado de Cea
>>             > Departamento de Lingüística Aplicada
>>             > Miembro del Ontology Engineering Group -OEG
>>             > Facultad de Informática
>>             > Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
>>             > Campus de Montegancedo, sn
>>             > 28660, Boadilla del Monte, Spain
>>             >
>>             > Home page: www.oeg-upm.net <http://www.oeg-upm.net/>
>>             > e-mail: guadalupe.aguado@upm.es
>>             <mailto:guadalupe.aguado@upm.es>
>>             > Telef.: 34-91-3367415
>>             >
>>             >
>>             >
>>             >
>>
>>             > IBM Italia S.p..A.
>>
>>             > Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate
>>             (MI)
>>             > Cap. Soc. euro 347.256.998,80
>>             > C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA
>>             10914660153
>>             > Società con unico azionista
>>             > Società soggetta all’attività di direzione e
>>             coordinamento di International Business Machines Corporation
>>             >
>>             > (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless
>>             stated otherwise above)
>>
>
>         *_Alessandro Oltramari_*
>         Research Associate
>         Psychology Department, Carnegie Mellon University
>         5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh PA 15213
>         Tel.: +1-412-268-6284 <tel:%2B1-412-268-6284> Fax.:
>         +1-412-268-2798 <tel:%2B1-412-268-2798>     Mobile:
>         +1-412-689-1514 <tel:%2B1-412-689-1514>
>
>         Homepage: http://fms.psy.cmu.edu/member/aoltrama/
>         LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/alessandrooltramari
>         Twitter/Skype: oltramale
>         /
>         /
>         "There’s no such thing as the unknown– only things temporarily
>         hidden, temporarily not understood.” [Capt. J.T. Kirk]
>         "To dare is to lose one's footing momentarily. Not to dare is
>         to lose oneself." [S. Kierkegaard]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Francis Bond <http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/fcbond/>
> Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies
> Nanyang Technological University


-- 

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
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2013 05:47:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 10:57:31 UTC