Re: Comments on lime.owl

Dear Armando,

thank you for having saved me from writing this long reply.

2014-06-06 22:32 GMT+02:00 Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>:

>
> *Armando*: uhm...not sure. Manuel did you put it to mean that a
> Lexicalization can also provide the total number of lexicalizations used by
> it? mmm, that would make sense. Think this is partially related to the
> ratio/integer. Independently of the coverage (and there can be many
> coverages, specifying coverage of various classes), it may be useful to
> provide the total number of lexicalizations used in a Lexicalization
> dataset. Obviously, if we dont use ratio, that number would be really
> equivalent to the number of lexs used in a ResourceCoverage with
> resource=owl:Thing.
>

I was tempted to slightly generalize the model. However, I would say it is
a bad idea to provide the total number of lexicalizations as a property of
a lime:Lexicaliation. The reason is that this modeling pattern introduces
much redundancy, which opens the door to inconsistency.


>
>    - Shouldn't we also count LexicalConcepts and Forms?
>
> As I wrote in the previous email, we are open to suggestions about
> additional statistics.
>
> OK consider it suggested
>
> *Armando*: +1
>
> Warmest regards,
>
> Armando
>



-- 
Manuel Fiorelli
PhD student in Computer and Automation Engineering
Dept. of Civil Engineering and Computer Science
University of Rome "Tor Vergata"
Via del Politecnico 1
00133 Roma, Italy

tel: +39-06-7259-7334
skype: fiorelli.m