W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ontolex@w3.org > June 2014

Re: telco today at 15:00

From: Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 16:14:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CANzuSaNcc0Hxd3kSX+o_SpTnhWUOwyf1FazyapjMj8dgZULhmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gil Francopoulo <gil.francopoulo@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:36:40 UTC