Re: LIME Final Model

OK,

I will keep the diagram as it is, but axiomatize as

LexicalizationSet ⊑ ∀ partition.LexicaliztaionSet

Regards,
John

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Manuel Fiorelli <manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Armando, John, All
>
> see my answers below
>
> 2015-01-30 14:59 GMT+01:00 Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
>>
>>  ya I know :-), but in the doubt I preferred to re-state it.
>>
>>
>>
>> For the range at the level of the property, IMHO, we could even not
>> specify it and just rely on the property intention (its description). This
>> enables future reuse of the property across different other cases should
>> the model be extended. It would then suffice to only specify the
>> restrictions class per class (which is, in any case, necessary).
>>
>>
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>
> I agree with you that the domain/range of lime:partition shouldn't be (LexicalizationSet
> ⊔ LexicalLinkSet).
>
> Otherwise, any additional use of the property would force us to change the
> vocabulary in a backward incompatible way.
>
> Furthermore, I suspect that a similar discourse applies to the property
> lime:resourceType.
>
>
>> *From:* johnmccrae@gmail.com [mailto:johnmccrae@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of
>> *John P. McCrae
>>
>>
>>
>> OK, so I see that we roughly agree, so to summarize
>>
>>    1. The class ResourceCoverage is removed, and replaced with a
>>    partition, which is just a lexicalization set or lexical link set
>>    2. The property coverage is now renamed partition, its range is now
>>    LexicalizationSet or LexicalLinkSet (range should match domain)
>>    3. We keep resourceType property and it can now be attached to either
>>    the LexicalizationSet or LexicalLinkSet
>>
>> In case it was unclear from previous emails, I agree  with these three
> points (despite sometimes being tempted to mint new URIs :-D )
>
> --
> Manuel Fiorelli
>