- From: Francesca Frontini <francescafrontini@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:07:35 +0200
- To: "John P. McCrae" <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Cc: Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es>, public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAB3JCs5S7QsZoNS+RM+qnnVZFNn15Kbef2b9mwtczHFA0ctMTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi everyone, sorry to enter so abruptly in the discussion. I was trying to follow the last confcall but my line was very bad (I was calling via Skype)... >From a lexicographic perspective I really feel uncomfortable about this idea of defining things such as "antonymy" under the umbrella of "variants". Variants are generally just FormVariants in linguistics, as far as i remember: relations like antonymy and synonymy are just good old *semantic* relations for me. I understand that in Ontolex the *semantics* should be on the ontology side, but then this may cause ANY relation among senses on the lexicon side to be a bit.... out of place, maybe? As for other phenomena, what about derivation, ... would that fall under LexicalVariant? I'm sure you have a good reason for that, and if I read all the documentation I would find it, but I thought it is quicker to just ask :) Regards, Francesca 2014-10-14 15:22 GMT+02:00 John P. McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>: > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es> wrote: > >> 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 >> > Yes!!!! > >> >>> - 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 >> > Yeah the issue is that we probably don't want to pun the classes as > properties.. we want to be able to say something like this > > :sense1 lexinfo:antonym :sense2 . > > Where > > lexinfo:antonym rdfs:subPropertyOf vartrans:senseVariant > > Currently we have to do the following: > > :antonym1 a vartrans:Variant ; > vartrans:source :sense1 ; > vartrans:target :sense2 ; > vartrans:category lexinfo:antonym . > > Regards, > John > >> >>> - 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/ >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2014 14:08:04 UTC