R: lime

Dear Philipp, all,

 

Sorry for replying so late (also considering tomorrow we have the call), but had a meeting out of office today (so couldn’t even talk with Manuel and had to reply separately) and that’s the soonest I could do.

 

see below.... it seems we are finally converging and only a few smaller issues are left, that is very good...

 

Indeed! great 

 

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 .


        OK, so I repleace now the property name by the longer name: Average Number of Lexical Entries per Concept 

 

Oh, maybe I created confusion with my reply: I was in favor of your suggested change to make the concept more explicit in the definition, by removing the expression “synonymy” in it. 
But I absolutely prefer to use the proper term in the name of the property: avgSynonymy. In term of a lexical metadata property, it seems to be much more evocative and easy to remember. In short, the property name is more intensional, while the definition clarifies its extension.

 

To tell the truth, I also preferred avgPolisemy instead of average number of Conceptualizations. I’m not sure I got the rationale for the change during our last call. If I’m not wrong (but I might easily be), it was related to the notion of sense and to the fact that a polysemous word has more senses, and not more concepts. Fact is, we are talking about lexical concepts: in WordNet, if a word is connected (through the related word-senses, for sure) to three concepts, then it has a polysemy of 3, and there is absolutely no confusion about that nor it creates any with senses (which do exist in WordNet as well).

 

For this reason, and in order to have a more proper and clearer terminology, I would strongly prefer to have the original names of both the properties (avgSynonymy, avgPolysemy).

..but, as I said, ok to make the definitions more explicit on how the count are made.

 

2)      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.


          Indeed, I noticed this as well, but did not find a better formulation. I changed it to: 

        The average number of lexical entries per concept property indicates the number of lexical entries that on average evoke a concept.

       Is it better now?

 

 

mmm…I don’t “feel” it right, even though I’m not a native English speaker (John, any help?) and I might be wrong.

To me the “evoke on average” sounds strange, as if I’m counting the lexical entries whose average computed on the “evoke” property is 1 (whatever it means :D ).

 

I think the issue lies in the lack of an active (instead of passive) name for isEvokedBy. If the name of the property (and thus the verb to use in the definition) were “foo” I would have suggested:

 

“…indicates the average number of lexical entries that each concept foos” :-D 

 

but with a passive name (and thus passive verb in the definition) the thing becomes less immediate. 

 

Thus, the best I could say is: “…indicates the average number of lexical entries evoking each lexical concept in the concept set” which is still quite compact and clear.

 

 

There was another issue in this email about the reference property, but Manuel already replied to that and I +1ed him

 

 

Indeed, no other issues, so yes, we are there!

 

See you tomorrow!

 

Armando