Re: ontolex.owl

Dear Manuel, all,

  see my answers below....

Am 23.06.14 16:30, schrieb Manuel Fiorelli:
> Dear Philipp,
>
> I reviewed the final specification 
> (http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Final_Model_Specification) 
> and the OWL ontology 
> (https://github.com/cimiano/ontolex/blob/master/Ontologies/ontolex.owl), 
> for what concerns with the core module. The following paragraphs 
> follows the structure of the final specification; However, I 
> interweave comments on the OWL ontology as well.
>
> *Comments on the ontology (ontolex.owl):*
>
> The comments on the defined entities are represented as xsd:string 
> typed literal. In fact, they should be plain literals (or language 
> tagged literals, in RDF 1.1) with language tag en.

You are right, a changed the range of all comments to xsd:string
>
>
> *Section "Conventions in this document"*
>
> Since you advocate the use of RDF 1.1, then you could use the latest 
> specification of Turtle, which has been published alongside RDF 1.1: 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/
>
> The LIME namespace has been erroneously associated with the prefix 
> vartrans:

Changed.
>
> *Section "Core*"
>
> In the previous section you associate the ontolex: prefix to the 
> namespace <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#>.
> However, in the vocabulary description, you use URIs such 
> as<http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex/LexicalEntry>, which assumes a 
> different namespace <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex/>.
>
OK, I am not sure which namespace we should choose, we should briefly 
discuss this today.

> *Section "Core" / "Lexical Entries"*
>
> In the specification there is only the axiom stating that a lexical 
> entry has a at least one lexical form. However, in the ontology there 
> is also an axiom stating that there could be at most one canonical form.

Well spotted, I added the axiom.
>
> *Section "Core" / "Forms"*
>
> In the specification of the class Form, you use a qualified number 
> restriction, while in the ontology you use an ordinary number 
> restriction. Moreover, the examples following the class definition 
> don't explain to me, when a form may have two or more written 
> representations.

In the ontology I use a qualified number restriction, can you please 
check again?
>
> In the ontology, ontolex:representation does not have a range. Nor 
> ontolex:phoneticRep has a range (it would be redundant, anyway). 
> ontolex:writtenRep has range xsd:string, which is inconsistent with 
> the specification, which uses RDF 1.1 language tagged literals.

I added ranges to the three properties as Literals.
>
> From the specification: "It can also have different phonetic 
> representations corresponding to different ways of pronouncing it." I 
> would replace the pronoun with the explicit subject "Form"

I will update, thanks.
>
> Thank you for making me aware of language tags such as en-US-fonipa 
> (for the phonetic representation). Maybe you could highlight in the 
> specification how you used the sublanguage tag fonipa for the phonetic 
> representation of a form in a given language.
>
> *Section "Core" / "Semantics"*
>
> In the ontology, the definition for ontolex:isSenseOf erroneously uses 
> "owl:incompatibleWith", instead of rdfs:comment
>
Changed. Thanks for spotting this.

> In the ontology, ontolex:isReferenceOf is not explicitly declared 
> inverse functional.
>
Done.

> *Section "Core" / "Lexicons"*
>
> In the first example, the row
>
> :lexicon a rdf:type ontolex:Lexicon;
>
> is wrong, since it contains both "rdf:type" and its abbreviation "a".

Done.
>
> In the ontology, ontolex:languageURI applies also to LexicalSense, 
> while ontolex:language does not.
>
Corrected.

> The range of ontolex:language in the description is wrongly indicated 
> as langString
>
changed.

> I would be more explicit about the possibility to mix language tags: 
> for example, "en" for the Lexicon and "en-GB"/"en-US" for 
> morphological variations of a lexical entry. I don't know if it is the 
> case to explicitly asserting that you should not have a lexicon for 
> english containing a lexical form in French.
>
In principle all lexical entries in a lexicon should have the same 
language, but we can not enforce this at the ontology level, so this 
should be something that we add to the definition of a lexicon, what do 
you think?
> From the specification "This shows how the English lexicon and the 
> Spanish lexicon are linked via the concepts that the different words 
> in the lexicon denote, thus integrating the lexica at the conceptual 
> level." I don't know if it is appropriate to use the word "concept", 
> since it may be ambiguous with the following notion of Lexical Concept.

Changed in spec.
>
> *Section "Core" / "Lexical Concept"*
>
> In the ontology, there is no axiom relating ontolex:LexicalConcept to 
> skos:Concept.
>
I had trouble importing the SKOS ontology. Can you maybe help and try to 
import the SKOS ontology, add the axiom and then create a merge request 
on GIT?

> In the ontology, ontolex:isEvokedBy has no inverse property axiom.

It has, can you check it again?
>
> In the ontology, there is no inverse property axiom relating 
> ontolex:lexicalizedSense and ontolex:isLexicalizedSenseOf
>
Done.
>
>
> 2014-06-23 8:28 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano 
> <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de 
> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>>:
>
>     Dear all,
>
>      I have been working on ensuring consistency of the ontolex.owl
>     module with the spec.
>
>     I have:
>
>     1) made sure that all axioms in the ontology correspond to those
>     in the spec; the ontology is consistent ;-)
>     2) ensured that all domain / ranges match
>     3) introduced examples illustrating the use in the git under
>     directory "Examples"
>     4) included the semiotics.owl ontology as we decided some time
>     ago; we agreed to not have this in the spec, but in the actual
>     ontology, see ontology file
>
>     I attach the current version of the ontolex.owl module (see attached).
>
>     I would kindly ask you to help me to ensure that the example in
>     Examples are fine. I did not find a service to validate the files
>     (they are in Turtle syntax). Can someone please check them and
>     modify them appropriately, modifying also the spec where these
>     example are given?
>
>     I would like to finalize the model on our telco on Friday, so
>     please raise any concerns this week.
>
>     Please carefully review the ontology and the text; if you spot any
>     issues, please let me know.
>
>     I have added a pointer to the GIT in the main wiki page.
>
>     Best regards,
>
>     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
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Manuel Fiorelli

-- 
--
Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
AG Semantic Computing
Exzellenzcluster für Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
Universität Bielefeld

Tel: +49 521 106 12249
Fax: +49 521 106 6560
Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de

Office CITEC-2.307
Universitätsstr. 21-25
33615 Bielefeld, NRW
Germany