Re: ontolex.owl

Hi Thierry,

  thanks for your very valuable feedback and apologies for taking some 
time to respond.

I fixed now all examples in ontolex/exampleX.ttl and run them over the 
JENA API to see that they are syntactically valid (using riot 
--validate). They all validate syntactically.

Two general comments on your email:

1) Of course it is not a solution to remove the ontolex namespace from 
all examples. Possibly TopBraid is complaining because the ontology is 
not available at the corresponding IRI. Not sure what the problem is 
honestly. If the problem still persists, I will try to download Topbraid 
and try it out.

2) In principle there is no need to add all the rdf:type statements you 
mention as they can be inferred from the domain/range constraints of the 
properties, so they would be logically redundant anyway, why do you need 
them?

3) Regarding point 2 above: I loaded example1.ttl in Protége and I got a 
strange behaviour that might explain your problem as well. For example, 
take the following code for example 1:

:lex_colour a ontolex:LexicalEntry;
      ontolex:lexicalForm :form_colour;
      ontolex:lexicalForm :form_color.

When loading this into Protége, there is an individual  :lex_colour, but 
no individuals :form_colour and :form_color (using inference does not 
help either). In fact, Protegé seem to interpret the above object 
property triples as annotation properties. If anyone knows how to fix 
this, please let me know. I assume that this is the same kind of 
behaviour that Thierry is getting in Topbraid, so it seems that I am 
doing something wrong?

More detailed comments are found below.

Thierry: would you please be so kind to check the examples again?

Best regards,

Philipp.


Am 13.07.14 10:29, schrieb Thierry Declerck:
>
> Am 08.07.2014 21:05, schrieb Philipp Cimiano:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Â the ontolex module is now clean:
>>
>> 1) ontolex.owl passes the validation test here: 
>> http://mowl-power.cs.man.ac.uk:8080/validator/
>>
>> 2) all the Turtle examples in Examples/ontolex are parsed by the JENA 
>> API, so I see them as syntactically valid
>
> Dear Philipp, All,
>
> Thanks again for this great work -- and  I can re-use quite a lot of 
> it for a tutorial :-)
>
> I started to "play" with the examples you provided. And I just wanted 
> to comment that I got problems with the namespaces that are used in 
> the examples: there seems to be a conflict with the namespaces that 
> are used in the ontolex.owl module (at least TopBraid didn't like it) 
> when I copied the example1.ttl in the core module. Well then I just 
> ignored the two namespaces that are listed in the example1.ttl file. 
> And this was running. BUt for this I also had to delete all mention of 
> the ontolex ns in the example (see below and in the attached file)
>
> Some few other problems with example1.ttl: I had to rewrite it a bit, 
> and this is running now in the core ontolex module:
>
> ===== Example1.ttl======
> :lex_colour a :LexicalEntry;
> Â Â Â Â  :lexicalForm :form_colour;Â Â  (in the original file we have: 
> ontolex:form :form_colour;)
> Â Â Â Â  :lexicalForm :form_color. (in the original file we have: 
> ontolex:form :form_color.)

Correct, form was wrong. I have replace it by lexicalForm, thanks for 
spotting this!
>
> :form_colour rdf:type :Form ; :writtenRep "colour"@en-GB.  (I added 
> "rdf:type :Form ;")
> :form_color rdf:type :Form ; :writtenRep "color"@en-US. (I added 
> "rdf:type :Form ;")
>
The rdf:type Statements are redundant and should not be needed? Why do 
you need to add them?

> ====
>
> I did the same for all examples (deleting the "ontolex" prefixes and 
> adding "rdf:type :Form ;2 where necessary
> In Example7.ttl I had to add "rdf:type :LexicalSense" for the 
> intorduced senses: :consumption_sense1 rdf:type :lexicalSense ; 
> :definition :consumption_definition1;
> Â  :reference <http://dbpedia.org/Resource/Consumption_(ecology)>."
>
> I also added "rdf:type :Definition ;" where necessary, so for example: 
> ":consumption_definition1 rdf:type :Definition ;
> Â  rdf:value "Consumers are organisms of an ecological food chain that 
> receive energy by consuming other organisms."@en ;

see above, the rdf:type statement are not necessary, so no need to 
include a class :Definition ;-)
> ."
> And for this I also introduced a class "Definition" in the core module.
>
> In example9.ttl, there is an addtional issue: the statement "a 
> ontolex:LexicalEntry;" is missinf for all spanish entries.

As above, why is this needed?

> Additionally there are in example9.txt some few errors:
> ":form_alto :writtenRep "gato"@es." => ":form_gato :writtenRep 
> "gato"@es." (and ultimately: ":form_gato a :From ; :writtenRep "gato"@es."
Thanks, well spotted, I corrected this.

> And
> :form_activo_intangible a :LexicalForm ;:writtenRep "activo 
> intangible"@es." is missing.

Thanks, corrected.
>
> I attach to this mail the core module I am using with the editor 
> TopBraid (I hope the latest version, but I think so), wiht all your 
> examples integrated :-)
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Thierry
>
> Â
>
>
> Â
> -- 
>
> Thierry Declerck,
> Senior Consultant at DFKI GmbH, Language Technology Lab
> Stuhlsatzenhausweg, 3
> D-66123 Saarbruecken
> Phone: +49 681 / 857 75-53 58
> Fax: +49 681 / 857 75-53 38
> email:declerck@dfki.de
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz GmbH
> Firmensitz: Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern
>
> Geschaeftsfuehrung:
> Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
> Dr. Walter Olthoff
>
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
> Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
>
> Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
> -------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
--
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