- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 20:34:18 +0200
- To: public-ontolex@w3.org
- Message-ID: <55A7F92A.8080204@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Dear Manuel, see my comments below.... Am 15.07.15 um 17:32 schrieb Manuel Fiorelli: > Hi Philipp, All > > please read my further answers. > > > 2015-07-15 8:27 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano > <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de > <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>>: > > Hi Manuel, > > thanks, see below ... > > Am 13.07.15 um 18:22 schrieb Manuel Fiorelli: >> Dear Philipp, All >> >> Following our discussion on the LIME module during the last >> telco, here are some updates on the specification: >> >> https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/index.php?title=Final_Model_Specification&diff=2289&oldid=2250 >> >> The spec has been modified to address some of the issues I have >> raised in previous emails (see details below within the quoted text). >> >> The diagram on Draw.io has been modified, considering the current >> state of the Lime metadata vocabulary. Further modifications >> could be required once you decided what to do with the properties >> to renamed or split. >> >> Some examples were added to the end of the metadata module, but >> we will revise them in the next days. We modified some >> definitions, but others have not been modified because of the >> possibility they could be split or renamed. Specifically, here >> are some definitions (or axioms) to be modified: >> >> *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. >> > > I changed the property definition to also include > ConceptualizationSet as domain. > > You mean ConceptualizationSet, right? > > > Yes, I meant ConceptualizatioSet. Ok, so we agree. > >> *lime:referenceDataset* >> >> - the definition should be reviewed >> > > For me the definition is fine, what exactly should be reviewed? > > > I think Armando has already replied on this point. The fact is that we > should decide if to use this property to count ontology elements > linked to lexical concepts (via a LexicalLinkset) or not. In the > affirmative case, we should make it clear in the definition, otherwise > we should coin a new property (I think). > >> >> *lime:lexicalizationModel* >> >> - the domain should not include ontolex:Lexicon (this could be a >> refuse remained after the introduction of lime:linguisticModel) >> >> > OK, fixed... > > > In the wiki, I still see the class ontolex:Lexicon in the domain (as > an argument of the OR). > > Right, fixed... >> *lime:references* >> >> - Not sure if this will be split or renamed >> >> > See my other email on this, I propose that for the sake of clarity > and avoid overloading we keep this property as denoting the number > of distinct ?o in triples (?s,reference,?o) > >> *lime:percentages* >> >> - in the definition, we should add the mention to lexical linksets >> > > I changed this as follows: > > The '''percentage''' property expresses the percentage of entities > in the reference dataset which have at least one lexicalization in > a lexicalization set or are linked to a lexical concept in a > lexical linkset. > > Fine? > > > It is fine to me. Good > > >> >> *lime:partition* >> >> - the definition of partition is wrong, as it only refers to >> lexicalization sets >> >> >> *lime:resourceType* >> >> - as before, it only mentions lexicalization sets >> > OK, thanks. I changed the definitions. Are they fine now? > > > Concerning the definition of lime:resourceType, I am not sure about > the part "or a partition thereof", because a partition of a > lexicalization set or lexical linkset is, respectively, a > lexicalization set or a lexical link set. OK, modified... >> *lime:concepts* >> >> the introduction to the definition of lime:concepts firstly >> mention its use in a concept set, although we are in the section >> about lexicalLinkset >> >> > OK, I introduced a pointer to the definition of ConceptSet in ontolex. > > Fine? > > > I think it is fine. > Good. > > >> *lime:avgNumOfLinks* >> >> - the definition is wrong. This property should give the average >> number of links per ontology entity >> > I changed the definition to: > > The '''average number of links''' property indicates the average > number of links to a concept for each ontology element in the > reference dataset. > > > I think that to we can apply the same observations that Armando make > on avgNumOfLexicalizations in another email. Will answer to this in a separate email to Armando... > > Regards > > 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 18:34:48 UTC