Re: LIME Final Model

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