- From: Nicoletta Calzolari <glottolo@ilc.cnr.it>
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 07:59:42 +0200
- To: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- CC: Francis Bond <bond@ieee.org>, 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>
- Message-ID: <5237EFCE.2090307@ilc.cnr.it>
Il 17/9/13 7:46 , Philipp Cimiano ha scritto: > Dear all, > > regarding the name of the model, I agree with Francis Bond here. even if I'm not active in the group I still read most of the mails, and just want to say that I agree with you on this and your arguments below Nicoletta > 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 06:00:20 UTC