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

RE: LIME terminology

From: Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 13:07:49 +0200
Message-ID: <DUB408-EAS2737FA1BE63001FA5613104A0A00@phx.gbl>
To: "'Philipp Cimiano'" <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, <public-ontolex@w3.org>, <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Dear Philipp,

 

thanks a lot and yes, that were the names! (we mentioned in our mail that we
remembered there were proposals for replacing lexicalizedDataset).

 

sorry I overlooked the link to the minutes (thought it was the one on the
left, which had no information).

 

See you in telco!

 

Cheers,

 

Armando

 

 

 

 

From: Philipp Cimiano [mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de] 
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 11:59 AM
To: public-ontolex@w3.org; public-ontolex@w3.org
Subject: Re: LIME terminology

 

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:

-          resourceCoverage still 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
<mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> 
 
Office CITEC-2.307
Universitätsstr. 21-25
33615 Bielefeld, NRW
Germany
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2014 11:09:03 UTC

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