Re: teleconference tomorrow 15:00

Jorge, all,

  rethinking this, my feeling would be that we recommend the use of the 
PROV-O vocabulary to add an an activity and or agent that produces the 
Translation.
This can be an algorithm of course. Human validation should be another 
type of activity.

So maybe this is not a case for adding new vocabulary, but showing how 
to use PROV-O in the context of ontolex to add such metadata. The 
confidence should be in my view also a confidence of the algorihtm or 
human that produced the translation. As such, there could be even 
different confidences by different agents on the same Translation, is 
that correct?

Regards,

Philipp.

Am 16.10.14 12:34, schrieb John P. McCrae:
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es 
> <mailto:jgracia@fi.upm.es>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Philipp, all,
>
>     I have removed the inter/intralingual variants form the wiki final
>     specification (as we already agreed on that) and done some
>     cleaning in the Vartrans module (fix wrong prefixes and stuff like
>     that).
>
>     I would add a couple of minor bullets in the agenda, for the
>     Vartrans module:
>     - Find a name for a superproperty of vartrans:source and
>     vartrans:target to be used in case the directionality of the
>     variation relation is not known or it is not important.
>     - Possibility of adding a couple of properties to Translation such
>     as confidence degree or a boolean indicating whether it is human
>     validated, for instance.
>
> I think we agreed to keep this as a data category, as it is very hard 
> to define 'confidence' in general
>
> Regards,
> John
>
>
>     Regards,
>     Jorge
>
>     2014-10-16 9:32 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano
>     <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>     <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>>:
>
>         Dear all,
>
>          this is a gentle reminder that we will have our weekly
>         ontolex teleconference on Friday, 15:00.
>         I will circulate access details by latest tomorrow.
>
>         Here are the main agenda points (taken from John's email):
>
>         Core:
>
>           * In core there is now a 'SenseLexicon' class but no
>             property to relate it any other elements in the model
>           * We could/should consider using dct:language instead of
>             ontolex:languageURI
>           * We cannot give conditions when a Lexical Sense should
>             apply (lemon had a condition property for this)
>           * It would be useful to indicate when a mapping is dependent
>             on the range or domain of a property (possibly)
>           * Should we add subclasses of LexicalEntry as follows Word,
>             MultiWordExpression, Affix?
>
>         Syntax and Semantics
>
>           * There is no property to indicate the conjugation
>             (morphological pattern) of a word
>
>         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
>           * 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?
>           * Are the Interlingual-/IntralingualVariant classes necessary?
>
>         Metadata
>
>           * There is no link between the metadata module and any other
>             module in OntoLex
>           * The Lexicon class is a duplicate of one already in the core
>           * The language property is a duplicate of one defined in the
>             core
>           * ConceptualizedLinguisticResource is not used by any other
>             part of module
>           * The 'lexical link set' class and property are not used by
>             any other part of the module
>           * Several properties are named the same as classes except
>             for the case of the first letter: resourceCoverage,
>             language, lexicalLinkSet and lexicalization
>           * Is the 'linguistic model' really required by every
>             lexicalization?
>
>
>         Please check also the examples on the metadata module that I
>         will send today.
>
>         We should also discuss the issue brought up by Francesca. My
>         feeling is also that it is akward to see anonyms as
>         "variants". They are clearly semantic relations that we should
>         not specify further. So we could think about introducing a
>         generic "senseRelation".
>
>         On the issue of variation that John raises: we could add two
>         classes LexicalFormVariant and LexicalSenseVariant; the
>         interlingual and intralingual variants we agreed to leave out
>         of the model. But we wanted to keep translation as a subclass
>         of LexicalSenseVariant I think.
>
>         Talk to you tomorrow,
>
>         Philipp.
>
>
>         -- 
>         --
>         Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
>         AG Semantic Computing
>         Exzellenzcluster für Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
>         Universität Bielefeld
>
>         Tel:+49 521 106 12249  <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249>
>         Fax:+49 521 106 6560  <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%206560>
>         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
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Jorge Gracia, PhD
>     Ontology Engineering Group
>     Artificial Intelligence Department
>     Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
>     http://jogracia.url.ph/web/
>
>

-- 
--
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

Office CITEC-2.307
Universitätsstr. 21-25
33615 Bielefeld, NRW
Germany