Re: lime module

Hi Philipp, All

I have just uploaded the image you asked for.

2015-07-15 14:30 GMT+02:00 Manuel Fiorelli <manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com>:

> Hi Philipp,
>
> please find my comments below.
>
> 2015-07-15 8:06 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
> >:
>
>>  Hi Manuel,
>>
>>  replying to this, todos from last Friday....
>>
>> Am 07.07.15 um 15:55 schrieb Manuel Fiorelli:
>>
>>   Dear Philipp, All
>>
>>  here are my preliminary comments. Most of them are minor typos, while
>> other may seed further discussion.
>>
>> -----
>>
>> In the introduction to example 1, the spec says:
>>
>> "As an example we may describe a simple lexicon using this property as
>> well as properties from Dublin Core and VoID: "
>>
>> The example then contains also the actual lexical entries that constitute
>> the lexicon. This is good for what concerns the self-explanatory nature of
>> the example. However, we should make clear that in general the metadata
>> only deals with the description of the lexicon as a whole, while the
>> representation of its actual content is in the scope of other modules. This
>> is particularly relevant to "lexicon catalogs", which may only be
>> interested in indexing lexicons without the need to also host the actual
>> content.
>>
>>    I kept the example as is but added a sentence that makes clear that
>> the metadata describes the lexicon as a whole as suggested by you.
>>
>>
> It seems OK to me.
>
>
>>   -----
>>
>> In the definition of LexicalizationSet, the classes Lexicon and Dataset need,
>> respectively, the prefix ontolex and void.
>>
>>
>> Fixed
>>
>
> Good
>
>>
>> -----
>>
>> I am not sure about this statement:
>>
>> "The lexicalization set object should be unique for a given
>> lexicon-ontology pair"
>>
>> Indeed, the statement above imply that there cannot be two different
>> lexicalization sets for FOAF using the WordNet RDF lexicon. I think that
>> this conclusion is false, so the previous statement should be retracted.
>>
>>    This has been removed.
>>
>
> Good
>
>
>>
>>   -----
>>
>> In the definition of lexicalizationModel, the disjunction is spelled OR,
>> whereas in other cases it is spelled in lowercase.
>>
>>
>> has been fixed by you I guess, thanks.
>>
>
> Actually, I think that ontolex:Lexicon should not be part of the domain
> of lexicalizationModel, unless we want to support lexica not expressed
> through the OntoLex model. Indeed, this proeperty is meant to hold values
> such as RDFS, SKOS, SKOS-XL, OntoLex,... while the use of a catalog of
> linguistic annoatations is reported by the property linguisticModel.
>
>>
>> -----
>>
>> The definition of lime:references does not mention the fact that in a
>> lexical linkset an ontology reference can be associated with a lexical
>> concept.
>>
>>
>> In order to avoid overlading, I would prefer to keep "references" as
>> referring to the distinct number of resources ?o, that is:
>>
>> # of different ?o such that (?s,reference,?o)
>>
>>
> I noticed that in the wiki the domain still contains
> lime:LexicalizationSet. What have you decided to do? Maybe you want to
> coin another property, but I have no suggestion for its name.
>
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Concerning Example2:
>> - we should add the language "ja" to the lexicalizationSet resource
>> - we may say that the ontology is an instance of voaf:Vocabulary, which
>> is a subclass of void:Dataset to represent vocabularies (both RDFS
>> Schemas and OWL Ontologies)
>> - I would extend the introduction to the example. This is my attempt:
>>
>>  <cite>
>> In the following example, we describe a lexicalization set expressing how
>> elements of an ontology can be verbalized in Japanese by means of entries
>> from a supplied lexicon. The metadata clearly tells which ontology and
>> lexicon are involved in the lexicalization sets, as well as the relevant
>> natural language. The knowledge of these facts about the lexicalization set
>> allows us to assess the usefulness of a lexicalization set for a given task
>> as well to discover relevant lexicalization sets, when we are constrained
>> by the choice of an ontology, lexicon or natural language.
>>
>> We model the ontology as an instance of the class voaf:Vocabulary that
>> is a kind of void:Dataset representing vocabularies (bot RDFS Schemas
>> and OWL Ontologies). We benefit from the more specific distinctions made by
>> VOAF, by breaking down the total number of entities in the ontology (held
>> by the property void:entities) into separate counts for the classes and
>> properties (held by voaf:classNumber and voaf:propertyNumber,
>> respectively).
>>
>> Similarly, we use terms from the Lime vocabulary to represent statistics
>> about the linguistic content of the lexicon and the lexicalization set.
>> Overall, the ontology defines 80 entities and the lexicon 100 lexical
>> entries; however, only 20 entities from the target ontologies have been
>> associated with a total of 50 lexical entries.
>>  </cite>
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Great, I have added your text to the example.
>>
>>
> Good. However, I have just noticed that my introduction assumed the use of
> some VOAF terms in the example: I will add the missings statements in the
> example late this afternoon.
>
>
>>
>> In the definition of avgNumOfLexicalizations, it occurs the word
>> "define" while it should be "defines".
>>
>>
>> I can not find this, sorry.
>>
>> But this brings me to another issues. The formula for
>> avgNumOfLexicalizations could be improved to make it clearer as follows:
>>
>> avgNumOfLexicalizations = # lexicalizations / # ontology entities in the
>> reference dataset
>>
>> What do you think? Can you possibly update the formula? That would be
>> great. Thanks.
>>
>>
> I agree that the formula should be updated. I will try this afternoon to
> produce a new formula, but I don't know if I can replicate exactly the same
> appreance.
>
>
>>
>> -----
>>
>> I would postpone example 3 to end of the section, and I would modify it
>> as follows:
>> - reuse the same data as in example 2, and make this clear in the
>> introduction to the example
>> - then, use the properties lexicalizations, avgNumOfLexicalizations and percentage
>> to "analyze" the scenario depicted in example 2. For instance, it is now
>> possible to tell explicitly that only 25% of the reference ontology has
>> been lexicalized.
>>
>>  We can make the example more interesting playing with polisemy so that
>> the ratios are not "obvious".
>>
>>
>> Actually, I think that example 3 makes definitely sense here. The ratios
>> are rather obvious, true, but this is good as a simple and clear example.
>>
>
> I think we already agreed on this during the last call.
>
>>
>> -----
>>
>> In the definition of LexicalLinkset, the class dataset needs the prefix
>> void.
>>
>> -----
>>
>>   OK, this has been fixed as far as I see.
>>
>>
> Good
>
> Best regards
>
> Manuel Fiorelli
>



-- 
Manuel Fiorelli