Re: Reminder, telco today on decomposition module

Yes I think you are right, we should expand the description of subterm as
it is the preferred primary mechanism of relating terms

Regards,
John

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Elena Montiel Ponsoda <emontiel@fi.upm.es>
wrote:

>  Philipp,
>
> I know it is too late for this, but Lupe and I were having a look at the
> model, and we are struck by the following doubt:
>
> What is the benefit of having the property subterm pointing to another
> LexicalEntry? What is it that you can say with that property that cannot be
> said with Components??
> In the paragraph below you talk about the limitations of subterm, but you
> do not say what the benefits of having it are, or what you can represent
> with that property that cannot be represented by Components, etc.
>
> "The use of the property *subterm* has two limitations. First, we can not
> indicate inflectional properties of the lexical entry when appearing as a
> subterm of another term. Further and most importantly we can not indicate
> the order of subterms within a compound lexical entry. For this, the model
> defines the the class Component, which represents a part of a lexical entry
> and allows to add additional information describing the use of the lexical
> entry in a compound. A component is declared as a subclass of rdf:sequence
> as it can be understood as an ordered list of sub-components."
>
> We think that an explanation on this sense is needed.
> Talk to you in a minute!
>
> Best,
> Elena.
>
> El 29/05/2015 a las 10:48, Philipp Cimiano escribió:
>
> Dear all,
>
>  this is a gentle reminder for our telco on the decomposition module today
> at 16:00 CET.
>
> Access details can be found here:
>
>
> https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2015.5.29,_16-17_pm_CET
>
> I have added to the agenda all points raised by Manuel (thanks Manuel!). I
> have not received any other issues to discuss.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Philipp.
>
>
>
>