Re: Ontolex/Lime: minutes of last meetings and some updates

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Armando Stellato <
stellato@info.uniroma2.it> wrote:

> Dear John, all,
>
>
>
> *lime:lang* has already been agreed which can be replaced with some
> ontolex:lang. Actually, the general trend is to reinvent a lang property
> (exactly, by changing only the namespace) for each vocabulary, so to
> identify its specific use. So, for instance, dcat has its own one, with its
> dedicated domain and range, and so we could, by setting up domain of
> lime:lang to lime:Lexicalizaton. Apart from that, I’ve no strong objection
> against reusing another one.
>
> One of the specific issues here is that it would be good to have an
> "ontolex-all" ontology, and thus we should avoid any inter-module name
> classes. Perhaps though the solution is to use the Dublin Core property
> and add appropriate axioms to the definition of Lexicalization/Lexicon,
> (Lexicalization ⊑ ∃ dc:language.String)
>
>
>
> * [Armando Stellato] *
>
> No strong opposition here, Manuel too confirmed any change here is ok; we
> just decided to leave the examples as they were, until a different choice
> was definitely agreed. Though, I must say, the more I see a similar
> property in other vocabularies, the more I’m convinced it makes sense to
> have a dedicated property, with its domain and range. It is not that we
> must constrain Lexicalization to have the lang property (though I would do
> that too), it is that actually I see better to have a dedicated property
> (with a certain intension), to be clarified and “domained” to
> Lexicalization.
>
> However, the intension of dc:language is wide enough exactly because it
> could be used in different contexts, so…the ones above are my thoughts, but
> dc:language is absolutely fine.
>
>
>
>  *lime:lexicalizedDataset*: we more or less agreed on its name, providing
> that the term *Dataset* was proven to be including ontology vocabularies.
> In the meanwhile I did check on some mailing lists, and the reply from
> Richard Cyganiak (one of the authors of void) is affirmative: Dataset does
> include ontology vocabularies. This is his reply on the LOD ml:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2014Jul/0012.html
>
> Note: I think there was also a proposal (maybe from Philipp) to use
> *targetDataset*. Not sure which one won, however, targetDataset is for me
> fine as well: more, if we have a Lexicalization, it **almost**
> immediately follows that its target is the dataset to be lexicalized, so
> maybe even nicer to use *targetDataset*. The only formal opposition to
> that would be that a Lexicon is a dataset too, and a lexicalization exactly
> binds a Lexicon and a Dataset to be lexicalized, so targetDataset would be
> slightly ambiguous.
>
> My principal concern is the ambiguity as lexicons are also datasets... the
> name of the group is OntoLex what is the problem of not just use the term
> ontology to refer to what we are lexicalizing (even if some of the targets
> may not be true ontologies)?
>
>
>
> *[Armando Stellato] *
>
> mmm…here I’m more convinced for dataset. The name “ontolex” has a very
> long history, it was also the name of the very first series of workshop on
> these matters, dating back 10 years ago. On the other side, ontology is an
> ambiguous term. In Dlogics, we have a clear separation between terminology
> and assertion boxes, in some ontology literature, you may find “Knowledge
> Base” in opposition to ontology, where kb is the data, and ontology is the
> schema. In some other ontology literature (already in the OWL / DL
> intention of the word, but before the advent of linked data), ontology is
> just any dataset (before the term was re-coined in this scope), which may
> be then separated in terminology and assertions. It much depended on what
> the authors have “breathed” in their research life and what is easier for
> them to address in their papers. Not to speak about the term (owl)
> vocabulary, which came out to clarify something unambiguously as a scheme,
> and which is often redundantly strengthened as “ontology vocabulary”, to
> avoid further ambiguities with other kind of vocabularies.
>
>
>
> So, summing up, in this lot of chaos, at least for historical reasons, I
> would say the name ontolex is sacred :-) but when it comes to a specific
> property, I would rather be stick with using a somewhat approved and shared
> terminology. I’m not dogmatic into this neither…just more convinced.
>
Just for the elegance of it, I would like to see some kind of symmetry
between the properties currently called "lexicon" and "targetDataset"...
perhaps something like "lexicalizedDataset"/"ontologicalDataset" or
"semanticDataset". I think targetDataset sounds a bit too bland.

Also, we should attempt to avoid names that are the same (up to
capitalization) between models, and as there is already an ontolex:Lexicon
class, we should avoid a lime:lexicon property (to avoid confusion).

>
>
>
>
>  *lime:resourceCoverage: *we agreed on its structure: it allows to
> factorize all the elements of a lexicalization in a single point (the
> Lexicalization object) and then have multiple partitions identified by it.
> However, we also agree that we may try to look for a better name :-)
> Suggestions?
>
> Actually this may be depending on that final decision on
> percentages/averages vs counts. resourceCoverage is evoked in my mind
> (though may be changed as well) if, like in this example, we have
> percentages/averages. With counts, I would be ever more tempted to look for
> something else.
>
> Shall we not follow VoID here and call the object a "partition"?
>
>
>
> * [Armando Stellato] *
>
> I wouldn’t, because in VoID you may address a partition as a whole new
> dataset description, just addressing the fact that its content is a
> partition of another one (in general, the main dataset being described in
> the file). In lime, the focus is not on the partition itself (we don’t add
> any more descriptions about it), but on how that certain partition has been
> lexicalized.
>
But it is still a partition of the lexicalization that we are describing,
right? It is the part that only refers to classes/properties/etc.

Regards,
John

>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Armando
>