W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ontolex@w3.org > August 2014

Re: synsem module

From: Manuel Fiorelli <manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 18:46:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGDmdGgB+d8t5FbAwHaLMjNsguop5DD6q6n+9wELAgs9LS9i=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Cc: "John P. McCrae" <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Hi Philipp, All

sorry for the delayed response, which is in fact quite simple.  See below.

2014-08-01 11:53 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
:

>
> Am 01.08.14 00:10, schrieb Manuel Fiorelli:
>
> My objection is that you split the description of the semantic frame into
> two blocks. In each block, you associated the frame with subframes, each
> one associating a semantic role with a syntactic argument. Having these two
> blocks, I can easily understand that the semantic frame has three roles,
> which maps to the syntactic arguments. Conversely, it I consider these two
> blocks together, as they are in reality, then I am not sure I can easily
> spot the "shape" of the semantic frame.
>
>    Yes, that is the only objection I can see so far as well. Let's give a
> deeper look at this after the holidays, ok?
>

I used the word "objection", which is quite a strong word. Maybe
"observation" would have been a better choice. Nevertheless, I agree with
you that we can continue the discussion after the holidays.

Meanwhile, happy holidays to everybody listening to this thread, and the
rest of the OntoLex community :-D
Received on Saturday, 2 August 2014 16:47:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:36:41 UTC