Re: Finalizing the LIME module

Dear Philipp/all

Sorry, this Friday I cannot attend the telco, I will be travelling back
form EKAW conference.

Regards,
Jorge

2014-11-25 8:47 GMT+01:00 Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>:

>  Dear all,
>
>  I can not have a telco this Friday, but please go ahead without me. I
> guess John can lead the telco. From my side the agenda is:
>
> 1) LIME: see points below of Armando
> 2) Translation of labels: issues and questions
> 3) Provenance of translations: the proposal of John is to include a
> property in LexInfo called "lexinfo:confidence" with range (for instance)
> vartrans:TranslationActivity subclassOf provo:Activity. We would like to
> avoid having to import the provo ontology in vartrans, therefore the
> proposal is to outsource this property to lexinfo.
>
> I will send out access details, but as already mentioned I can not attend.
>
> Philipp.
>
> Am 24.11.14 19:49, schrieb Armando Stellato:
>
>  Dear John, Philipp,
>
>
>
> thanks for the resume John!
>
>
>
> One thing before we commit any change: we have until now sent always
> updates (later, together with examples) on a turtle version of the file,
> which is rather more readable than RDF/XML. In any case, any format is fine
> for us, but since we have both already in place, this is the right time to
> choose which format to adopt and trash the other one. Just let us know if
> TURTLE is ok or if you prefer to keep the RDF/XML one, and we will send
> updates on the format of your choice.
>
> Apart from further changes, we see in any case the lime.owl you attached
> you sent is still different from the resume of your email (e.g. there is
> stil lLexicalization instead of LexicalizationSet), but we can apply these
> changes asap on the file of the format we agree.
>
>
>
> Now, going to your email:
>
>
>
> LexicalLinkset: Not in proposal... I remain unconvinced that this is
> really useful but it does not seem completely useless, let's keep it.
>
>
>
> We had this left appended for discussion in the next OntoLex meeting.
> Shall we meet this Friday?
>
>
>
> Lexicon: Merge with Ontolex module
>
>
>
> This has been discussed extensively: in last call I (Armando) said we
> (both Manuel and me) would still prefer them to be separate (and, in case
> of data and medata convering on the same object, have it being an instance
> of both classes), though have no strong opposition in merging, providing we
> are at least sure there are no counterexamples.
> I think we found one counterexample: LIME may provide statistical info
> even about other kind of lexicalizations (and thus of Lexicons as well). In
> this case, a separate file containing SKOSXL Labels, to the purpose of our
> statistics, would be a lime:Lexicon as well, though cannot for sure be
> considered an ontolex:Lexicon. So, if we hold that true, at most
> ontolex:Lexicon could be a rdfs:subClassOf lime:Lexicon.
> Regarding the “look back at the past”: I said in the last call that we
> have no big example from the past: in void there is the notion of
> void:Dataset, simply because there is no equivalent at the data level. In
> VOAF, its authors were not owners of the OWL Vocabulary, so had to defined
> a separate class. But one thing I forgot to mention is that they could
> state the following axiom: voaf:Vocabulary rdfs:subclass owl:Ontology,
> which they did not.
>
> Again, I would not like to make it a “defense at all costs” :-) just
> trying to consider all implications…
>
>
>
> class: As proposal
>
>
>
>                 ermm…really sorry, don’t recall this: I remember Philipp
> suggested this to be “resourceType”. Did we revert back in the last call
> for any reason? I think I preferred lime:class but didn’t recall to have
> tried to revert to the original name
>
>
>
> lexicalizedReferences: Not in proposal but useful
>
> references: Not in proposal but OK
>
>
>
> we just noticed now that the “lexicalizedReferences” proposed by Philipp
> was already available in the ResourceCoverage, with the already existing
> name “references”, and was in fact being used only in the ResourceCoverage
> (see examples). In the wiki it is being reported with domain:
> Lexicalization or ResourceCoverage, but that was not our in our proposal
> (see Lime.ttl and our examples). If we had to choose, we would keep
> “references”, as, in the context of a ResourceCoverage, its meaning is
> pretty clear.
>
>
>
> lexicalizedDataset: 'referenceDataset' in proposal (I prefer that name)
>
>                  however, the label in lime.owl is still “lexicalized
> Dataset”, was that by purpose?
>
>
>
> linguisticModel: Called 'lexicalModel' in proposal (I prefer linguistic).
> Note this should be an annotation property.
>
>                  about the name: both of us not really sure, so we leave
> it to you (btw, in lime.ttl and examples is linguisticModel). Just our two
> cents: we are referring always to purely lexical models (rdfs, skos,
> skosxl, ontolex), but as we say…we leave to you the final word.
>
>                 about the type: we disagree with annotation property:
> besides what can be (currently) inferred by a reasoner, there are concrete
> relationships between the values of this property and conditions to be met
> by agents using them. Also, we have some axioms in mind (to be discussed in
> another topic…)
>
>
>
> senses: Not in proposal but OK
>
> lexicalEntries: OK
>
>
>
> agreed last time, though…we are rather reluctant on putting
> ResourceCoverage also in the domain for them. Also, they are not useful for
> computing (given the absolute values) the statistics we produce. In fact,
> given the two formulas below, the “lexicalizations for elements of type T”
> are provided by the “lime:lexicalizations” property, but still the
> “elements of type T” is missing
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 1)      *avgNumberOfLexicalizations:* defined as
>
>
>  2)      *percentage*: reported (in percentage) as:
>
> < span
> style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN">
>
>
>
> though…maybe here we are missing something?
>
>
>
>
>
> Everything else’s fine, just let us know whether to update the ttl or the
> owl.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Manuel and Armando
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* johnmccrae@gmail.com [mailto:johnmccrae@gmail.com
> <johnmccrae@gmail.com>] *On Behalf Of *John P. McCrae
> *Sent:* Friday, November 21, 2014 2:23 PM
> *To:* public-ontolex
> *Subject:* Finalizing the LIME module
>
>
>
> Hi Armando, Manuel, all,
>
> I was attempting to figure out the differences between the proposal you
> guys sent for LIME and the version on the wiki. As I see it the following
> alignment is what we roughly agree on:
>
> ConceptualizedLinguisticResource: Remove this class.
> LexicalLinkset: Not in proposal... I remain unconvinced that this is
> really useful but it does not seem completely useless, let's keep it.
> LexicalizationSet: OK
> Lexicon: Merge with Ontolex module
> ResourceCoverage: Not in proposal, but OK.
> avgNumOfLexicalizations: 'avgNumOfEntries' in proposal, I think
> lexicalizations is a clearer name
> class: As proposal
> language: Merge with Ontolex module
> lexicalEntries: OK
> lexicalLinkset: see above
> lexicalization: OK
> lexicalizations: Not in proposal but useful
> lexicalizedDataset: 'referenceDataset' in proposal (I prefer that name)
> lexicalizedReferences: Not in proposal but useful
> lexicon: OK (but we should consider a clearer name, e.g., lexiconDataset)
> linguisticModel: Called 'lexicalModel' in proposal (I prefer linguistic).
> Note this should be an annotation property.
> percentage: OK
> references: Not in proposal but OK
> resourceCoverage: Called 'coverage' in proposal, we should keep this as it
> is shorter and more distinct
> senses: Not in proposal but OK
>
> As such I attach what I would propose as a finalized version of Lime,
> assuming you agree with what I stated above.
>
> Regards,
> John
>
>
> --
> --
> 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/