RE: lime

Hi Philipp,

 

thanks very much for the review work. This is from me only, so Manuel might want to add something else.

 

I’m more or less ok with the definition change you did on the definition of avgSynonymy. Just a couple of things:

 

1)      I think you wanted to get rid of that “synonymic LexicalEntries per concept” as you felt “synonymic” as redundant with the “per concept” (it is clear that they are attached to a concept, exactly because they are synonymic, and vice versa). I think you mentioned something like that during our call. 
I’m also in favor of being even more “plainly clear”, so OK for replacing with .

 

2)      I made in turn a very small change for a typo. I think there were a missing “of” in the definition: "The average synonymy property indicates the average number (+of) lexical entries that evoke a given concept."

 

3)      The only part which does not convince me is: “evoke a given concept”. I’m not sure about the best way to render in English, but with respect to the previous one, this seems to be focused on one concept, as if the property is computing an average over a single concept (and thus is a property of the concept itself). 
I would say more “that evoke each single concept in the concept set”. Or any rephrasing in line with my improvement would be fine.

 

No major issues such as introduction of new properties from scratch etc.. don’t worry ;-) 

the only cases might be those which were originated from an extension of the domain of some properties (such as referenceDataset, or lexicalEntries) to include further classes (e.g. LexicalLinkSet, or ConceptualizationSet), which were considered for being split instead into two properties. On these, you said you preferred to think more on that after the call. If, case by case, you opted for keeping the property as is with the extended domain, then no need to add any further property.

 

So, a few comments on the last email exchanges between you and Manuel (take this improved scheme made by Manuel as a reference: https://drive.draw.io/#G0BwvuzIAhamr9X1dwRkUyTjRFaVU , which needs also to be updated on the Wiki)

 

Manuel: lime:lexicalEntries

- The domain of this property should be Lexicon or LexicalizationSet or Conceptualization and the definition should be changed accordingly, unless we want to split this property into two or more properties.

Philipp: I changed the property definition to also include ConceptualizationSet as domain. You mean ConceptualizationSet, right?

Armando:  If I’m not taking the wrong property, it seems you wrote ConceptSet, but it is ConceptualizationSet. And yes, I can reply on your question: he meant ConceptualizationSet, but he just, in the previous email, sent Conceptualization to use the previous name, while waiting  ConceptualizationSet was waiting for approval (we agreed to do so to avoid confusion). I’m not changing it on the wiki, but if you agree here on ConceptSet-->ConceptualizationSet I can go on the wiki and fix it

 

Manuel: lime:referenceDataset - the definition should be reviewed

Philipp: For me the definition is fine, what exactly should be reviewed?

Armando: He was referring to the domain we extended with LexicalLinkSet, which is not mentioned in the definition. We discussed this in the talk, but I think you or/and John had a problem with extending the domain, as you preferred this property to really mean the elements which are “referenced” (i.e. use of property “:reference”). 
If fine for you to keep the property with the extended domain, then the original:

 

“The reference dataset property indicates the dataset that contains the ontology or vocabulary elements referenced by a given lexicon and thus providing the grounding vocabulary for the meaning of the lexical entries in the lexicon.”

 

Could be changed into:

 

“The reference dataset property indicates the dataset that contains the ontology or vocabulary elements that are either referenced by a given lexicon (and thus providing the grounding vocabulary for the meaning of the lexical entries in it) or linked to lexical concepts in a ConceptSet by means of a LexicalLinkSet”.

 

The part in between brackets could be dropped if you feel the definition is too long.

 

That’s all for now, I leave the word to Manuel, and will give a further overview later.

 

Cheers,

 

Armando

 

 

 

 

 

From: Philipp Cimiano [mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 8:39 AM
To: public-ontolex@w3.org
Subject: lime

 

Dear all, Armando and Manuel in particular,

 I went over the lime part of the model this morning in detail and for me the module is fine now.

I changed the definition of avgSynonymy as follows:

"The average synonymy property indicates the average number lexical entries that evoke a given concept."

Is that fine from you side?

I need to update the ontology and examples in the git, I will do this tonight. Please send me any urgent issues by tonight.

In general, I really want to freeze the whole model by end of this week on our Friday telco. So please do not bring any major issues, introduction of new properties now.

There will be the chance of revising the model afterwards. I think we can be very happy with what we have provided so far.

This will be version 1.0 of the lemon-ontolex model ...

Greetings,

Philipp.





-- 
--
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 <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> 
 
Office CITEC-2.307
Universitätsstr. 21-25
33615 Bielefeld, NRW
Germany