Re: synsem module

Dear all,

    I returned from holidays end of last week. Given that some people 
are still on holidays, I propose we have our next telco on Friday 29th 
at the regular slot, i.e. 15:00 (CET). I will send out an announcement soon.

@Fahad and Francesca: regarding our email thread before the holidays, 
would you please be so kind to send an example of the modelling of 
frames that is in your view appropriate, an LMF document would be fine 
for now so that we can study the LMF modelling in more detail in the 
next telco and then propose appropriate vocabulary elements in the 
synsem module to do the job. Starting from LMF seems a good idea to me 
as I mentione a few weeks ago.

I will continue working with the vartrans and metadata modules from next 
week on until we receive the input form Fahad and Francesca to continue 
the work on the synsem module.

I regard the ontolex and decomp modules as largely finished. Please 
check the ontologies and examples carefully so that we can soon agree to 
release them.

Looking forward to continuing with our work.

Best regards,

Philipp.

Am 02.08.14 18:46, schrieb Manuel Fiorelli:
> 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 
> <mailto: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

-- 
--
Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
AG Semantic Computing
Exzellenzcluster für Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
Universität Bielefeld

Tel: +49 521 106 12249
Fax: +49 521 106 6560
Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de

Office CITEC-2.307
Universitätsstr. 21-25
33615 Bielefeld, NRW
Germany