- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:53:10 +0200
- To: Manuel Fiorelli <manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com>, "John P. McCrae" <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- CC: Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es>, "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <539A2146.8060309@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Dear all, I think it was clear that we recommend to use BCP 47 in the
context of lemon.
So yes "eng" should be "en"; i changed this several times and other
people change it back ;-)
Actually, according to recommendations of the BPMLOD group, every string
should have a language tag, so we should follows this best practice in
our examples.
Yes, you can represent dialect variations using BCP 47, i.e. en-GB or
en-US and these should be attached to different forms rather than to the
lexicon as John mentioned.
Hope this clarifies.
Philipp.
Am 06.06.14 17:49, schrieb Manuel Fiorelli:
> Hi John, All
>
> Concerning the property language, I noticed that it is defined on the
> ISO 639-{1,3} codes, while RDF 1.1 refers to BCP 47 (RDF referred to a
> now obsolete RFC).
>
> In fact, BCP 47 reuses ISO codes, but it also commits on very specific
> decisions. For instance, I am quite sure that English should be
> expressed only as "en" rather than "eng" (in the official registry
> there is no eng tag:
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry/language-subtag-registry).
> In such cases, we could have values for the property language that
> should not appear as language tags in the actual RDF data.
>
> If my concerns are true, then the following example from the Wiki
> would be problematic (excuse me if the problem has already been
> addressed):
> ex:lex_marry a ontolex:LexicalEntry ;
> ontolex:canonicalForm ex:form_marry ;
> ontolex:otherForm ex:form_marries .
>
> ex:form_marry ontolex:writtenRep "marry"@eng .
> ex:form_marries ontolex:writtenRep "marries"@eng .
>
> Moreover, if we allow ontolex:languageUri to represent any language
> beyond the scope of the ISO repertory, then we could not have any
> language tag to use.
>
> Should we avoid language tags altogether, and instead rely on the use
> of ontolex:language for each lexical form?
>
> One interesting features of BCP 47 is the ability to represent country
> variations, such as en-GB or en-US. I suspect that ISO 639-{1,3} codes
> do not allow to represent these variations. Do we care about?
>
> Furthermore, concerning the existence of two related properties, I
> wonder whether they are formally related or not. For instance, can
> they be used together, or are they mutually exclusive?
>
>
>
> 2014-06-06 16:27 GMT+02:00 John P. McCrae
> <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
> <mailto:jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>>:
>
> 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/>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Manuel Fiorelli
--
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 21:53:42 UTC