- From: Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es>
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 13:37:45 +0200
- To: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Cc: "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANzuSaOTp+Xw-kcJLnxx8VU=VjkLFQS+yoc4Fzm9RiWrwt6BDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Dear Philipp/all, I am not sure if I can join the telco today. Just in case, let me add here a brief comment about this issue. In principle, I would recommend NOT to reuse the same name "Lexicon" for defining two different classes "ontolex-lemon:Lexicon" and "lime:Lexicon", specially coming both from the same ONTOLEX model. That might be confusing. If "lime:Lexicon" is really a "void:Dataset" maybe we should choose a slightly different (and more significant) name like LexiconDataset or LexiconData or something like that. Just thinking aloud ;) Regards, Jorge 2014-05-16 12:57 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> : > Dear all, > > first of all thanks to Armando and Manuel for resending their slides and > for the very clear exposition of these slides during the last telco in > April. That was indeed very enlightening. > > Given the exposition, I myself am inclined to both accept the > Lexicalization as well as the ratios as "fist-class citizens". > > In any case, let me make a suggestion for what to decide today, we can > look at the details during the telco of course, but let me try to structure > the discussion a bit: > > 1) ontolex:Lexicon (recommend properties such as creator, version etc. > from dc and dcat as recommended vocabulary to express general metadata), in > addition to numerical properties such as: i) number of lexical entries, ii) > number of senses, iii) number of distinct references, iv) number of > references that have at least one sense (lexical entry), v) percentage of > references that have at least one sense (one lexicalization so to speak), > vi) average number of lexicalization (senses) per reference > > One question: is this relative to the lexicon or taking into account all > the data elements in the lexicalized dataset > > 2) lime:Lexicon (lexicon as dataset), see 3 below > > with main property lime:lexicalCoverage (Armando already hinted in this > slides that we could rename LanguageCoverage to LexicalCoverage and > correspondingly languageCoverage to lexicalCoverage I suppose?) > > a LexicalCoverrage class would essentially state for each language and > each type of lexicon ontology interface model (SKOS, lemon, RDF labels > etc.) the number of conceptual resources covered by at least one lexical > entry, the average number of lexical entries per conceptual resource etc. > > 3) Introduce lime:Lexicon and lime:Lexicalization as subclasses of > void:Dataset in the lime module > > 4) I think the (sort of) agreement during our last telco was to have the > ratios/percentages in addition to the absolute numbers as we agreed that > the absolute numbers can not always be re-computed exactly from the ratios. > We should reach consensus here. > > My opinion is that introducing a few ratio properties will simplify > accessing this information by people who want to use the lexicon. > Re-computing this information might be difficult sometimes; not everyone > speaks SPARQL, not always endpoints are up etc etc. Some ontologies to not > have endpoints, so people would need to download the data, load it into > some OWL Api, count the number of individuals, classes etc. quite tedious > if you are just a user of SW technology ;-) So +1 from my side to include > some ratios then. > > So including this information in the lexicon might indeed be a useful > addition. > > However, I see some issues about *how* to count the number of conceptual > resources, particularly in the case that there are more than one > "lexicalized datasets" per lexicon. In this case we might want to provide > the information per dataset or even per domain, which blows up the > complexity again substantially. > > 5) One question is whether we include *also* in the model the information > that allows to recompute the ratios as well, that would include that we > provide both: i) number of conceptual resources in the lexicalized > dataset(s) - which can be more than one, and ii) number of conceptual > resources covered by at least one lexicalization. In addition to the ratio. > > In this case the ratio would be redundant, so be it. In any case could > define these properties and monitor which ones are used ;-) We could > recommend using both the integers and the ratios as good practice. > > If we agree on the above points, I volunteer to create a small example > with Armando on the wiki to aid the discussion. > > Talk to you later anyway! > > Philipp. > > > Am 15.05.14 18:17, schrieb Armando Stellato: > > Hi Philipp, > > > > Just a short recap from Manuel and me about the only part which to us > seemed appended: the ratio/percentage vs count. We do not report anything > about the model as, at best of our memories, there were no objections about > the overall structure (which does not mean it is necessarily the final one, > and it is still open for comments). > > > > We thus updated the previous document with some considerations (also taken > from the last ontolex call we had) and reported them in section: 5 > > Please, feel free to add more on the “integer side”, so we already have > a basis for discussion tomorrow. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Armando and Manuel > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Philipp Cimiano [mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de<cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> > ] > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:26 PM > > > To: public-ontolex@w3.org > > > Subject: Teleconference on Friday > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > I would like to call for a telco on this Friday on our regular slot: > > > 15:00 (CET). > > > > > > The main goal is to discuss the metadata module and come to a conclusion. > > > > > > I will send some decision points out before the meeting on Friday. > > > > > > Access details can be found here as usual: > > > https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2014.16.05,<https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2014.16.05,_15-16_pm_CET> > > > _15-16_pm_CET<https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2014.16.05,_15-16_pm_CET> > > > > > > I look forward to talking to you on Friday. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Philipp. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > -- Jorge Gracia, PhD Ontology Engineering Group Artificial Intelligence Department Universidad Politécnica de Madrid http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~jgracia/
Received on Friday, 16 May 2014 11:38:30 UTC