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

Re: Open Issues in the Model

From: John P. McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:19:09 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC5njqqZjHOXazmXEszraaph9kAS9D0Hyxzci-YmNyrcPs4O=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
Cc: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Armando Stellato <
stellato@info.uniroma2.it> wrote:

> Dear John, Philipp, all
>
>
>
> I’m in greece for a project meeting. Here a few quick comments, then, yes,
> I’ll be back Thursday night, so available on Friday for the telco.
>
> Metadata
>
>    - There is no link between the metadata module and any other module in
>    OntoLex
>
> Yes u r right. Though easy to add when finished.
>
>    - The Lexicon class is a duplicate of one already in the core
>
> Well, actually, the contrary ;-) we originally proposed the class in the
> metadata module, when depicting the triad: lexicon, lexicalization, ref onto
>
> I’m in no way criticizing the introduction of “Lexicon” even in the core,
> though, let me recap just the warnings I already gave at the time of that
> discussion:
>
>
>
> 1)      A lot of vocabularies are actually thought to depict datasets
> which have a kind of identity, though, this “identity” (intended as the
> collection of , or better an umbrella over, some kind of data) is usually
> not explicitly represented in the data. The sole (notable) exception is
> owl:Ontology (also, owl is actually a metavocabulary as it is used to
> design vocabolaries which are in turn used for representing data). This is
> one point against “Lexicon” in the core.
>
> 2)      Metadata vocabularies are following a kind of indirection
> provided by proxy objects such as void:Dataset. This is one point “in
> favor” of putting the Lexicon in the metadata, as a proxy for the Lexicon
> data depicted through the core vocabularty (and other data related modules)
>
> 3)      Solutions such as voaf:Vocabulary (the proxy for owl:Ontology)
> suggests to keep the Lexicon in the metadata *even* if it is also in the
> core.
>
OK, there seem to be three solutions here

   1. Merge Lexicon class from LIME into OntoLex Core (hence removing the
   class lime:Lexicon)
   2. Merge Lexicon class from OntoLex Core into LIME (hence removing the
   class ontolex:Lexicon)
   3. Keep both, but rename lime:Lexicon to avoid confusion

I think you seem to be proposing (2), right? I am not completely against
that...


>
>    - The language property is a duplicate of one defined in the core
>
> Yes, alread discussed. To be updated.
>
>    - ConceptualizedLinguisticResource is not used by any other part of
>    module
>
> This is part of the old Lime. We agreed on removing it, as it seems we
> were not too much for the descriptioin of (various kinds of) LRs. Then, the
> problem (think, to your disappoint :D ) emerged again as there have been
> more than one proposal for getting back on the representsation of (even
> poorer, such as entry:set-of-translations) lexical resources. Despite the
> horrible name (which in any case had to be changed), I decided to keep the
> class until we came out with a defoinitive decision on the lex res thing.
>
>
>
>    - The 'lexical link set' class and property are not used by any other
>    part of the module
>
> Yes, this was a more recent proposal for labeling somehow linksets between
> ontologies and LexicalConcepts of lexical resources (no lex entries playing
> any role). This was left out from the last discussion on LIME.
>
In general, I think at this point making some concrete examples of the
usage of the LIME module may help us to correctly formalize the usage

>
>
>    - Several properties are named the same as classes except for the case
>    of the first letter: resourceCoverage, language, lexicalLinkSet and
>    lexicalization
>
> Don’t recall, did we agree to avoid this pattern? If yes, no problem, we
> can rename them. Personally, I prefer this pattern but, no problem if it
> was agreed to avoid it.
>
Yeah, we have this a 'best practice' rule... if other names could be found
that would be better... how about 'coverage', 'linkSet' and 'lexicalizedBy'?

>
>
>    - Is the 'linguistic model' really required by every lexicalization?
>
> Erm…would say yes :)
>
Perhaps I am just confused as to what the linguistic model actually is
then... currently the property has no range and is only required by
Lexicalizations but not Lexicons or Linksets so again more examples would
help here.

Regards,
John

>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Armando
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2014 13:19:38 UTC

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