Re: lime module

Hi Philipp, All

I think that I have nothing to reply :-D

2015-07-16 20:34 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@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>:
>
>>  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
>
>


-- 
Manuel Fiorelli