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

Re: telco today at 15:00

From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:46:20 +0200
Message-ID: <539A1FAC.9010204@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
To: public-ontolex@w3.org
Dear all,

   I have seen no objections to this two-property scheme, so I will 
implement it in the ontolex module.

It is true that there is no way in OWL to ensure consistency of the 
property, but so be it... there are many things that can not be ensured 
in OWL ...

Philipp.

Am 06.06.14 16:27, schrieb John P. McCrae:
> Hi Gil, Jorge,
>
> Thanks for the comment, we have discussed it in the telco. The 
> decision that is proposed is to have two properties
>
>   * *language* whose value must be a two-letter ISO 639-1 code or a
>     three-letter ISO 639-3 code (ISO 639-2 is not supported to avoid
>     ambiguity
>   * *languageURI*//whose value should refer to an RDF language
>     resource, for example the Library of Congress identifier or
>     (better) the LexVo identifier
>
> The second property is better from a semantic point of view (as we can 
> use the extra information given by LexVo) and allows us to refer 
> definitions for languages that don't have an ISO code (e.g., Dothraki, 
> Jèrriais)
>
> Are there any objections to this scheme?
>
> Regards,
> John
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es 
> <mailto:jgracia@fi.upm.es>> wrote:
>
>     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/>
>
>


-- 

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
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2014 21:46:52 UTC

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