Re: telco today at 15:00

Hi all,

Concerning the Jorge's remark, excuse me to get back on this discusion 
of language codes, we had with Felix several monthes ago.

The W3C recommandation DCAT 
http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#Property:catalog_language is both 
obsolete and totally silly.

It is said:

If a ISO 639-1 (two-letter) code is defined for language, then its 
corresponding IRI /SHOULD/ be used; if no ISO 639-1 code is defined, 
then IRI corresponding to the ISO 639-2 (three-letter) code /SHOULD/ be 
used.

ISO-639-2 contains only 462 values: a large number of users (including 
myself for African languages) need to use ISO-639-3 codes which covers 
all languages (around 7000).

Thus, I'm against defining ontolex:language with this obsolete 
specification.

PS: it is not because a W3C recommandation was defined in January 2014 
that it is not semantically obsolete ;-)

Gil






Le 06/06/2014 15:14, Jorge Gracia a écrit :
> Hi Philipp,
>
> Let me add another issue for the first part
>
> 1.6) In ontolex:language, Is it better to have a URI as range instead 
> of a String? See DCAT for instance 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#Property:catalog_language
>
> Regards,
> Jorge
>
>
>
>
> 2014-06-06 8:59 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano 
> <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de 
> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>>:
>
>     Dear all,
>
>      we have  a few things to discuss today, I would propose splitting
>     the slot in two parts:
>
>     1) Discussion about ontolex changes (30 mins, with decisions on
>     the single points)
>
>        1.1) Introducing Lexicalization into the core model (decision)
>        1.2) Naming the property between a "Lexical Sense" and a
>     "Lexical Concept"; contains was not regarded as appropriate by
>     many, so proposals on the table are: realizes/isRealizedBy,
>     lexicalizes/isLexicalizedBy, instantiates/isInstantiatedBy,
>     substantiates/isSubstantiatedBy, means/isMeaningOf as well as
>     expresses/isExpressedBy; I am fine with at least 3 of them ;-)
>        1.3) Discussion: renaming property lexicalForm to simply "form"
>        1.4) Discussion: introducing property "definition" as a
>     subclass of rdfs:comment with domain ontolex:LexicalSense
>        1.5) Discussion: explicitly introducing the class "Reference"
>     as the range of "reference" as we have it anyway in most our
>     diagrams; has no practical neither theoretical implications other
>     than clarity (IMHO) and increasing the size of the module by one class
>
>     2) Discussion on lime proposal sent by Manuel/Armando (this
>     assumes that Armando will be there to walk us through) -> 30 mins.
>     (no decision)
>
>     Btw: I finally managed to find a nice tool to produce UML-style
>     visualizations of our models. It is called draw.io
>     <http://draw.io> ;-) I attach a diagram that reflects the current
>     state of the ontolex module. The diagram is in the GIT repo as
>     well (where cardinalities are not indicated they are 0..n).
>
>     I propose to postpone the discussion about Translation for another
>     occasion. I need to make up my mind myself there. I will send a
>     separate email on this.
>
>     Access details can be found here as usual:
>     https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2014.06.06,_15-16_pm_CET
>
>     Talk to you later!
>
>     Philipp.
>
>     -- 
>
>     Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
>
>     Phone: +49 521 106 12249 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249>
>     Fax: +49 521 106 12412 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012412>
>     Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>     <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
>
>     Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS)
>     Raum 2.307
>     Universität Bielefeld
>     Inspiration 1
>     33619 Bielefeld
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Jorge Gracia, PhD
> Ontology Engineering Group
> Artificial Intelligence Department
> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
> http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~jgracia/ 
> <http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/%7Ejgracia/>