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

Re: Open Issues in the Model

From: Francesca Frontini <francescafrontini@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:07:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CAB3JCs5S7QsZoNS+RM+qnnVZFNn15Kbef2b9mwtczHFA0ctMTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "John P. McCrae" <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Cc: Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es>, public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
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 Polit├ęcnica de Madrid
>> http://jogracia.url.ph/web/
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2014 14:08:04 UTC

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