- From: Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 16:14:55 +0200
- To: Gil Francopoulo <gil.francopoulo@wanadoo.fr>
- Cc: "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANzuSaNcc0Hxd3kSX+o_SpTnhWUOwyf1FazyapjMj8dgZULhmA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Gil/all, In today's telco we considered that would be good to keep ontolex:language with String as range, and recommend its use with ISO-639-3 codes, and to introduce an ontolex:languageURI property if richer representations (e.g., those provided by Library of Congress, or by LEXVO, such as http://www.lexvo.org/page/iso639-3/eng) are needed. Regards, Jorge 2014-06-06 15:53 GMT+02:00 Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es>: > Hi Gil, > > Thanks for the comment! My intention was to propose a language URI as > range (from Library of Congress, for instance) rather than a String. We > could safely ignore the DCAT advise on the ISO codes to be used, of course. > > Regards, > Jorge > > > > 2014-06-06 15:42 GMT+02:00 Gil Francopoulo <gil.francopoulo@wanadoo.fr>: > > 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>: >> >>> 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 ;-) 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 >>> Fax: +49 521 106 12412 >>> Mail: 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/ >> >> >> > > > -- > Jorge Gracia, PhD > Ontology Engineering Group > Artificial Intelligence Department > Universidad Politécnica de Madrid > http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~jgracia/ > -- Jorge Gracia, PhD Ontology Engineering Group Artificial Intelligence Department Universidad Politécnica de Madrid http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~jgracia/
Received on Friday, 6 June 2014 14:15:42 UTC