Re: Lime: short check list of pending decisions / small fixes

Definition of an 'entity' from VoID

http://www.w3.org/TR/void/#statistics

The total number of entities that are described in the dataset. To be an
entity in a dataset, a resource must have a URI, and the URI must match the
dataset's void:uriRegexPattern, if any. Authors of VoID files may impose
arbitrary additional requirements, for example, they may consider any
foaf:Document resources as not being entities.

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it
> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Don’t be scared by the length, these are mostly things which can be
> decided quite easily, and that do not change the overall specification. We
> just preferred to make this summary to go through it very easily during the
> call.
>
>
>
> The only thing requiring a little effort are those properties in a limbo
> between: split them/widen their domain. I’m sorry but, since the decision
> was pending, we couldn’t fix the specification. The position of both Manuel
> and me is to widen the limbo, and keep a meaningful name for them to be
> used where needed. However, we have no issue in splitting them, just, in
> this case, we need the further property to be generated, as not adding it
> would create a gap in the specification.
>
>
>
> ·         Add namespace of (Lemon/all or Ontolex) in the definition of
> lexicalizationModel to represent when ontolex is used as a lexicalizaiton
> (which of the two? Lem/all or ontolex?)
>
> ·         Properties to be split/range to be widened:
>
> o   ReferenceDataset: Philipp removed LexicalLinkSet from the domain, but
> LexicalLinkSet needs something like this, be it the same or another one.
> Note also that an axiom on LexicalLinkSet still say to require:
> =1.referenceDataset.
>
> o   References: same as for referenceDataset
>
> o   Concepts:  missing ConceptualizationSet from its domain (to be
> homogeneous with LexicalizationSet featuring also lexicalEntries)
>
> o   Lexical entries:
>
> ·         Name of avgXXX props (both of them: avgSynonymy, avgPolysemy).
> See relevant email sent by Armando yesterday night
>
> ·         URI representing a lexicalization based on URI of references
> themselves (in case no other is available, good to consider if the
> localnames are more or less readable, and to know in which language). A
> proposal could be: http://uri4uri.net/vocab or we invent
>
> ·         Statistics Counts: We can decide if the metaelements (e.g.
> ontology itself) count or not. After all, maybe the ontology itslef is not
> always expected to be counted. This is "not so" important for the
> specification, though we might need to fix the examples (in one comment on
> the lexicalized FOAF example, the coverage is not 100% because of the lack
> of the lexicalization on the FOAF URI itself).
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Armando
>