Re: No ontolex telco today

Hi Philipp,

I'm happy to see that there was an agreement on vartrans. I volunteer to
document it in the wiki and github if nobody else did it yet, although not
in the next few days I am afraid (I am overwhelmed with other tasks!)

For me it is fine to discuss the provenance example by email. I am still
not fully happy with so I would appreciate any comment

Regards,
Jorge

2014-11-14 11:33 GMT+01:00 Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
:

>  Dear all,
>
>  there has not been much activity on the mailinglist this week. Further, I
> have no agenda points for today. I propose that we cancel today's telco.
>
> I will work on the specification in the next weeks and hope that we can
> have a final specification until end of the year.
>
> Jorge: can we discuss your provenance example via email?
>
> Have a good weekend,
>
> Philipp.
>
> Am 09.11.14 21:17, schrieb Philipp Cimiano:
>
> Jorge, ontolex members,
>
>  last Friday we had an very intense telecoference, see minutes here:
>
> As important milestones, we decided the following:
>
> 1) accept proposal 3B of Jorge mentioned in the email below. With this we
> more or less conclude the work on the vartrans module, for which we decided
> to keep the name (vartrans). We still need to finish the discussion on
> representing provenance of translations however (Jorge: are you going to be
> available for the telco next week)
>
> 2) We discussed again the examples for the metadata module provided by
> Armando and Manuel and agreed on them essentially. We only discussed few
> things: whether a proxy resource for a dataset is needed (it is needed to
> add metadata essentially) and whether we need both a ontolex:Lexicon (as
> lexicon object) and a lime:Lexicon (as dataset).
>
> 3) We decided to have both integer and percentage properties for the
> coverage in the lime module.
>
> I think these are important milestones that conclude some of the open
> discussion we have been having in the last months.
>
> Talk to you all on the 14th to finalize other aspects of the model.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Philipp.
>
> Am 07.11.14 14:19, schrieb Jorge Gracia:
>
> Dear all,
>
>  After some internal discussions we are proposing (Elena, Lupe, and
> myself) the following to accommodate the new notion of a generic
> lexico-semantic relation in Lemon-Ontolex:
>
>  1) To add a generic "Lexico-semantic Relation"  to the CORE module (the
> name can be another one of course) for reifying relations whenever it is
> necessary, and having the "source" and "target" properties that we have
> discussed in the previous telcos. It is specialised in "Lexical Relation"
> whenever the relation is at the level of forms or lexical entries, and
> "Sense Relation" whenever the relation is between senses. The motivation of
> placing these in the core is to support ANY module that wants to reuse the
> same reification mechanisms.
>
>  [image: Imágenes integradas 1]
>
>  2)  Based on those classes, any type of specific relation could be
> supported. Now it is our choice whether to include them as a lemon module
> or as something external to the model. For instance, new relations could be
> defined: "Morphological derivation" (e.g., happy -> unhappy) at the lexical
> level or "Antonymy" at the sense level, for instance.
>
>
>  [image: Imágenes integradas 2]
>
>  3-A) Vartrans module: the Variant relation is proposed as a
> specialisation of "Lexico-semantic Relation". Roughly speaking, we
> understand "Variant" as a relation between two entities (lexical entries,
> forms, senses, ...) that are interchangeable under certain conditions,
> still keeping similar meanings (e.g., "finger" -> "hand" are not variants,
> but "color" -> "colour" or "bank"@en -> "banco"@es are variants). There are
> several subclasses of Variant:  "Lexical Variant" and "Translatable" are
> variants that are lexical relations as well, and "Terminological Variant"
> and "Translation" are variants that are also sense relations. See the
> figure for some examples...
>
>  [image: Imágenes integradas 3]
>
>  3-B) However one could say that any possible variant is covered already
> by the above referred subclasses "Lexical Variant", "Translation",
> "Terminological Variant", ... So another scheme without the "Variant" type
> is also possible, although loosing the notion of a relation between
> entities that are exchangeable under certain circumstances (which is given
> by "Variant").
>
>    [image: Imágenes integradas 4]
>
>
>  I hope you find this reflections useful. Sorry we are not available
> today for discussing it, but any feedback or comment by email will be
> appreciated, and we can continue the discussion in the following telco.
>
>
>  Best regards,
>
>  Jorge, Elena, Lupe
>
>
>  --
>  Jorge Gracia, PhD
> Ontology Engineering Group
> Artificial Intelligence Department
> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
> http://jogracia.url.ph/web/
>
>
> --
> --
> 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
>
>
> --
> --
> 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
>
>


-- 
Jorge Gracia, PhD
Ontology Engineering Group
Artificial Intelligence Department
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
http://jogracia.url.ph/web/