Re: Some remarks on LIME

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Manuel Fiorelli <manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Philipp, John, Armando, All
>
> I looked both at the Final Model Specification (
> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Final_Model_Specification) and
> at the ontologies published to GitHub (
> https://github.com/cimiano/ontolex/blob/master/Ontologies/lime.owl and
> https://github.com/cimiano/ontolex/blob/master/Ontologies/ontolex.owl),
> in order to evaluate the status of the metadata module.
>
> You can find my remarks below.
>
> Remark #1
> The figure on the wiki (
> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Final_Model_Specification#Metadata_.28lime.29)
> is outdated. However, I do believe this is due to the fact that the
> vocabulary is still being discussed.
>
The up-to-date diagram is here

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwvuzIAhamr9X1dwRkUyTjRFaVU/view?usp=sharing

Let me know if you see any errors.

>
> Remark #2
> The class lime:LexicalizationSet appears to require exactly 1
> ontolex:Lexicon. However, I remember that we allowed the description of
> "legacy" lexicalization sets (e.g. SKOS, or RDFS) that do not refer to a
> separate lexicon. Therefore, the association between a
> lime:LexicalizationSet and a ontolex:Lexicon should be optional rather
> than mandatory. Additionally, lime:lexicalizationModel (which is supposed
> to distinguish between different lexicalization approaches) has no domain,
> nor it is used in the definition of lime:lexicalizationSet.
>
OK, I will make that change.

>
> Remark #3
> In the formula defining lime:percentage (
> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/images/b/bb/Percentage_formula.gif),
> it appears something like "entity ∈ reference", which is not entirely
> obvious to me.
>
 Maybe it should be 'entity ∈ reference-dataset' or just 'entity', would
that be clearer?

>
> Remark #4
> lime:conceptualDataset or lime:conceptDataset? I remember we have
> discussed it, but I am not sure if we agreed on a choice. The intended
> meaning should be "a dataset containing lexical concepts".
>
Conceptual? I don't really mind either though

>
> Remark #5
> The description of ontolex:ConceptSet in the Wiki is not consistent with
> the OWL definition. The description in the OWL ontology (
> https://github.com/cimiano/ontolex/blob/master/Ontologies/ontolex.owl#L391)
> seems to contain some mistakes:
>
>    - there is no rdfs:subclassOf void:Dataset axiom
>
> OK, will fix

>
>    - the axiom concerning skos:inScheme is wrong, because the property
>    links concepts to concept schemes, rather than the opposite. It seems to me
>    that there is no property relating a concept scheme with its concepts (not
>    only the top concepts). In OWL2, you could use an "inverse of" property
>    expression. Also, I am entirely sure about the use of
>    owl:equivalentClass.
>
>  Yep, will fix

>
>    -
>
> Remark #6
>
> ontolex:Lexicon is not declared to be a void:Dataset. Remember that we
> agreed to combine the data-level class ontolex:Lexicon with the metadata
> level class lime:Lexicon.
>
Will fix

> Remark #7
>
> There is no class ontolex:Conceptualization, which associates an
> ontolex:Lexicon with a ontolex:LexicalConceptSet. With respect to this
> class, I wonder whether we can find a less ambiguous name. Indeed, it
> recalls to may mind the famous definition "an ontology is a formal,
> explicit specification of a shared conceptualization" (Studer et al.,
> 1998), in which the word conceptualization is used in a rather different
> sense.
>
Last thing I know was from Armando saying he will 'reply soon' (on Jan 30).
>From my point of view, I don't principally object to this but could you
send an updated proposal.

Regards,
John

>
> --
> Manuel Fiorelli
>