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

Re: LIME terminology

From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 11:58:59 +0200
Message-ID: <54365C63.6000509@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
To: public-ontolex@w3.org
Armando, all,

  thanks, you are right. Indeed, I have not touched the metadata module 
since our last discussions before the summer break (shame on me).

My intention is to get back to the metadata module with high priority 
next week and work steadily towards finalizing it.

I want to use this week to finalize discussions on the variation and 
translation module.

So stay tuned!

Btw. thanks for the nice summary of the changes I have to implement and 
those which we still need to agree on ;-)

Further, I see in the minutes from the telco on 18/07 
(http://www.w3.org/2014/07/18-ontolex-minutes.html) that I proposed and 
I think we agreed to use the following two properties:

lexiconDataset and referenceDataset

to provide links from one lexicalization dataset to the lexicon and to 
the dataset containing the (ontological) vocabulary that is lexicalized.

I think this was agreed upon if I remember correctly.

My only remaining doubt is if these were supposed to be functional 
properties. If we want to state resourceCoverage for lexicalizations, 
then this has to be surely specific for a particular vocabulary / dataset.

We surely need to discuss this further, I will come up with a more 
concrete proposal by next week.

Regards,

Philipp.

Am 08.10.14 15:49, schrieb Armando Stellato:
>
> Dear Philipp, dear all,
>
> we have noticed that the source on github for the metadata module 
> <https://github.com/cimiano/ontolex/blob/master/Ontologies/lime.owl> 
> is not updated to the latest terminological changes we agreed in a 
> past call before summer (maybe the one on 18/07 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2014.18.07,_15-16_pm_CET> 
> ? )
>
> The problem is...sorry we didn't take note of them as we had to rush 
> out for another meeting. Is anybody aware of the changes we agreed?
>
> So far, we remember very well the change proposed by Cimiano (and 
> approved by all the people attending the call) to the Lexicalization 
> class, which solved the ambiguity with the fact that each single 
> linguistic attachment is also referred to as a "lexicalization".
>
> The change was:
>
> *Lexicalization --> LexicalizationSet*
>
> Then, we *think* these were also suggested:
>
> prop*: resourceCoverage --> coverage* (the "resource" was there for 
> historical reasons, to better distinguish from languageCoverage, but 
> now this is not necessary anymore, due to the reorganized <Ontology, 
> LexicalizationSet, Lexicon>  structure. Also the presence of the 
> referred ResourceCoverage object inside a lexicalization, makes it 
> very clear that we are talking about the coverage of that 
> lexicalization, so no need to specify anything else).
>
> class: *ResourceCoverage --> LexicalCoverage*  (this is the class of 
> objects pointed by the above "coverage" property. As a class per se, 
> it would be nicer to highlight the fact that it is telling that it is 
> about the "lexical" coverage of a given resource, since this context 
> is out also of its definition, but is part of the lexicalization 
> containing it)
>
> Finally, these ones...we really don't recall
>
> prop: *lexicalization -->*??? (this is the property linking a given 
> void:Dataset -- thus including an ontology vocabulary as well -- to a 
> LexicalizationSet; we don't remember if we came out with a definite 
> name about it. We think so, but don't recall which one
>
> prop: *lexicalizedDataset --> lexicalizationTarget or keep as -is*??? 
> | we discussed this a lot, there were a combo of different pair of 
> names as candidate, for sure the ontology (e.g. lexicalizedOntology) 
> was discarded, as despite the generic brand-name ontolex maybe nice, 
> we should be formal in the vocabulary on not constraining this to owl 
> vocabularies alone, and be able to include all kinds of datasets. We 
> remember just "target" was suggested, as the "lexical" scope is clear 
> from the domain of the property (a LexicalizaitonSet).
>
> To give an overall resume about the status of the vocabulary, here we 
> list then other things which we found in the source and are still 
> under discussion:
>
> Classes:
>
> -LexicalLinkset a recent proposal, which had still not being discussed.
>
>   
>
> Properties:
>
> -resourceCoveragestill open the integer/ratio thing, but we decided to 
> let it rest for a while more :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Manuel and Armando
>

-- 
--
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
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2014 09:59:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:36:45 UTC