Re: synsem module

Dear Philipp,
Sorry for the delay in responding,  we have been on holiday too the last
couple of weeks.  We were planning to send something to the list before we
went away, but it turns out the translation was harder to do than we
thought (and our collective knowledge of lmf less comprehensive) and we
weren't entirely happy with what we came up with.  However we will send you
a slightly polished version of our proposed example next week before the
telco -- after having hopefully discussed it with colleagues far more well
versed in lmf than us.
Cheers
Fahad and Francesca
 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>
:

>
> 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