Re: Open Issues in the Model

Hi John/all,

Here you are my comments on some of your reported issues...

2014-10-10 20:07 GMT+02:00 John P. McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>:

> Core:
>
>    - We could/should consider using dct:language instead of
>    ontolex:languageURI
>
> Yes, I would be in favour. The drawback, though, is the redundancy of
names we would have: ontolex:language (for string languages) and
dct:language (for URI languages). I think that is the reason why we
introduced "languageURI"


> Variation
>
>    - Lexical Variant is defined between either forms *or* lexical
>    entries... there should be a class that is only for forms and a class that
>    is only for entries
>
> What about TerminologicalVariant (for senses), LexicalVariant (for
entries), and FormVariant (for forms) ?
Or even simpler!: SenseVariant, EntityVariant, FormVariant

>
>    - All variants are specified only in their 'reified' form, do we want
>    to allow users to directly state variation between two entries (or forms or
>    senses) with a single triple?
>
> A possible option is to use OWL2 "punning" (
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-new-features/#F12:_Punning), although I am not
familiarised with it and I do not control their possible implications well

>
>    - Are the Interlingual-/IntralingualVariant classes necessary?
>
> I think we already decided in the last telco to remove them, as all the
possible variants are already covered by the other types. Am I right?


> Metadata
>
>    - The Lexicon class is a duplicate of one already in the core
>
> In any case I would keep it in the core as a first class citizen (and I
see no reason why reusing it in other modules, such as the "metadata" one,
would not be possible)

Regards,

Jorge



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