- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 20:29:41 +0200
- To: public-ontolex@w3.org
- Message-ID: <55A7F815.6020502@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Thanks! Philipp. Am 15.07.15 um 22:17 schrieb Manuel Fiorelli: > 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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 -- -- 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 Office CITEC-2.307 Universitätsstr. 21-25 33615 Bielefeld, NRW Germany
Received on Thursday, 16 July 2015 18:30:12 UTC