Re: LIME Final Model

Dear John, All

the figure has been produced based on the content of the attached document
resuming the LIME model.

Hereafter, you can find my partial answers. Indeed, I haven't verified them
with Armando.

*1. lime:Conceptualization does little*
In fact, it is doesn't. In the attached document, you find that it has the
properties lime:concepts and lime:lexicalEntries. There is also an explicit
question about further properties, maybe related to polysemy and synonymy.

*2. lime:LexicalConceptSet should be renamed and moved to the core*
Not sure.





*3. New property 'lexicalizationModel'4. New property 'concepts'5. New
properties 'links' and 'avgNumOfLinks' replacing reuse of 'lexicalizations'
and 'avgNumOfLexicalizations' on LexicalLinkSet6. Subclasses of
ResourceCoverage: LexicalizationCoverage and LexicalLinkCoverage*

Nothing so say here, since you accepted the change.


*7. Properties avgNumOfLexicalization, percentage, lexicalizations no
longer on Lexicalization*
This is something that (if I remember correctly) was still under
discussion. However, in the attached document I was open to the possibility
to include these properties the LexicalizationSet.

The change you propose would dramatically change the semantics of the
model. Currently, a coverage is only a container of statistics. With your
change in place, a coverage would be a dataset, which contains (I presume)
the lexicalization triples.

*8. Properties lexicalEntries on LexicalizationCoverage*
Nothing so say here, since you accepted the change.


2015-01-23 13:59 GMT+01:00 John P. McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>:

> Hi Armando, Manuel, all,
>
> So I was looking at the model proposed in the recent paper (file:
> lime.png) in comparison to the version that currently exists in the Wiki:
>
>
> https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Final_Model_Specification#Metadata_.28lime.29
>
> Here are the changes I see:
>
>
>    1. New class 'Conceptualization'
>    2. ontolex:ConceptLexicon => lime:LexicalConceptSet
>    3. New property 'lexicalizationModel'
>    4. New property 'concepts'
>    5. New properties 'links' and 'avgNumOfLinks' replacing reuse of
>    'lexicalizations' and 'avgNumOfLexicalizations' on LexicalLinkSet
>    6. Subclasses of ResourceCoverage: LexicalizationCoverage and
>    LexicalLinkCoverage
>    7. Properties avgNumOfLexicalization, percentage, lexicalizations no
>    longer on Lexicalization
>    8. Properties lexicalEntries on LexicalizationCoverage
>
> I propose we resolve these changes as follows
>
>    1. 'Conceptualization' currently doesn't do much, either we introduce
>    some properties here (e.g., 'concepts') or we don't include this new class.
>    2. This class is useful in the core as well, it should thus be defined
>    there. I propose the name 'ConceptSet' as a compromise name.
>    3. Accept
>    4. Accept
>    5. Accept
>    6. Accept, but see next point
>    7. Reject, currently we have the axiom ResourceCoverage ⊑ resourceType
>    exactly 1. But we would like to say the number of lexicalizations etc. for
>    *all* resources, hence these properties should have the appropriate domain.
>    In fact I would like to make a suggestion and say that resource coverage
>    are specializations of lexicalizations or lexical link sets. That is add
>    the axioms LexicalizationCoverage ≡ ResourceCoverage ⊓ Lexicalization and
>    LexicalLinkCoverage ≡ ResourceCoverage ⊓ LexicalLinkSet.
>    8. Accept.
>
>
> I attach the resulting updated model according to my resolution.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>



-- 
Manuel Fiorelli