Re: LIME Final Model

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Manuel Fiorelli <manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>
OK, the properties are just not in the diagram, I am fine with adding the
class assuming the properties are also added

>
> *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.
>
OK, I think the important thing is that properties such as lexicalizations
can be added to the Lexicalization, it didn't look like that from the
diagram

As for changing the semantics, I disagree. The lexicalization is not truly
a 'dataset' in most cases as it is instead may be published as part of a
lexicon (or even part of an ontology). Instead it is a dataset in the sense
that it some set of triples, in this case the triples linking an ontology
to a lexicon, thus for me a resource coverage is also a dataset, that is
the set of triples linking a lexicon to a selection of the ontology's
entities by type.

Regards,
John

>
> *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
>