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

Re: telco today at 15:00

From: Manuel Fiorelli <manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:10:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGDmdGjSATGjMq+PwZPwixUNABvsmxDfbWCFf6ShZ1W7uEphTw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Cc: Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es>, public-ontolex@w3.org, John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Dear Philipp

Thank you for the clarifications.
Il 12/giu/2014 23:53 "Philipp Cimiano" <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> ha
scritto:

>  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
> >:
>
>> 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> 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>:
>>>
>>> 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 <%2B49%20521%20106%2012249>
>>>> Fax: +49 521 106 12412 <%2B49%20521%20106%2012412>
>>>> 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/
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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 Friday, 13 June 2014 11:11:15 UTC

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