Re: Reminder, telco today on decomposition module

Hi Philipp, All

Here are my comments on the Synsem module. The comments on decomp will
follow in the next days.

---

In the diagram, the association named "subframe" should be applied to
SemanticFrame rather than to sense. The same holds true for the property
condition.

---

In the wiki, it is mostly used the property name synBehaviour, despite in
the definition box it appears as synBehavior. In the ontology, the property
is named synBehavior with a label equal to "syntactic behaviour".

I do not have a strict opinion on which orthography to use, but I am
surprised that the (human readable) name and the label use two different
orthographies.

----

Just above the definition box of synArg, there is the following sentence:

"The object property synArg is used to relate a (syntactic) frame to one of
its (syntactic) arguments."

I would avoid the use of parenthesis around the word syntactic, and instead
write "syntactic frame".

----

In the definition box of Class: Syntactic Argument and Class: Syntactic
Argument, should there be a superclass Argument? (at least it is present in
the ontology)

----

In the definition box of Class: Semantic Frame, the axiom should use
SemanticArgument
instead of Argument

-----

Concerning Example synsem/example3, I would make it explicit the fact that
the binding between the syntactic and semantic arguments is realized by
unifying them.

------


In Example synsem/example7, you use rdfs:subProperty, while the correct one
is rdfs:subPropertyOf.

the the semantic argument giving_event seems unbound. Is this a case in
which we should use the property isA?

----

I would expand the description of Example synsem/example8, to indicate the
function of synsem:isA. Also, if I am right on the previous point, I think
that there is a slight difference between the use of isA in this example
and its use in example 7.

----

In the wiki you use "*X ∈ ∃inverse father.Thing"*. Although it is probably
a bad name, I would write a perhaps clearer "*X ∈ ∃ fatherOf.Thing*".
However, I am not sure.

----

Do we want to add an example for symsem:isA? Maybe we can expand the
example in the table:

Class Unary predicate City(x), ?x rdf:type dbpedia-owl:City

---

If we want to represent an event verb, we can take the example from the BIO
ontology:
http://vocab.org/bio/0.1/.html#Graduation

2015-06-09 7:20 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>:

>  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
> > 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
>
>


-- 
Manuel Fiorelli