Re: Reminder, telco today on decomposition module

Dear all (there were two crucial typos in my email from yesterday ;-)

I have *now* completely *updated* the synsem and decomp modules 
according to what we have discussed in the last three weeks. I have 
synchronized the description in the wiki with the ontologies and the 
examples.

Here are a few todos:

1) All: please check that the points you have raised recently have been 
considered to a satisfactory extent; let me know otherwise.
2) Fahad: please check the new examples for the synsem module. Are they 
better?
3) Lupe/Elena/Manuel (not Armando): please check the examples in the 
decomp section. Do they solve the issues we discussed? Let me know please.

John and me are still working on some specific examples...

Kind regards,

Philipp.

Am 08.06.15 um 22:44 schrieb Philipp Cimiano:
> Dear all,
>
>  I have not completely updates the synsem and decomp modules according 
> to what we have discussed in the last three weeks. I have synchronized 
> the description in the wiki with the ontologies and the examples.
>
> Here are a few todos:
>
> 1) All: please check the the points you have raised recently have been 
> considered to a satisfactory extent; let me know otherwise.
> 2) Fahad: please check the new examples for the synsem module. Are 
> they better?
> 3) Lupe/Elena/Armando: please check the examples in the decomp 
> section. Do they solve the issues we discussed? Let me know please.
>
> John and me are still working on some specific examples...
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Philipp.
>
> Am 02.06.15 um 10:53 schrieb John P. McCrae:
>> 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 <mailto: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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> --
> 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

-- 
--
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