Re: Some remarks on LIME

Dear John, All

sorry for the delay in responding. You can find my replies below.

2015-03-09 14:49 GMT+01:00 John P. McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>:

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 is outdated.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

I don't see any error. Maybe just an omission: the property references for
the class *Lexical Link Set*.

Some further notes:

   - should we include ontolex:language to the diagram, although that
   property is defined in a different namespace?
   - do we want to indicate the cardinality constraints in the diagram?
   e.g. that a *lexicalization set* has exactly 1 *reference dataset* and
   at most one *lexicon*. In the affirmative case, however, we should not
   forget any of the constraints defined in the vocabulary
   - do we want to specify the datatypes of the attributes?


>> 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?
>

Mmm... I would have voted entity ∈ reference-dataset; however, I am not
sure whether it is consistent with our notion of partition with respect to
lime:resourceType.

The closest thing to what I have in my mind is

entity ∈ reference-datasetresourceType

I am not sure if there is a standardized notion for this. Moreover, if the
use of resourceType is not compulsory (for the "top lexicalization set"),
then this notation might be misleading.


>
>
>> 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
>

I have no strict position on this subject. However, a point for
conceptDataset could be the analogy with lexiconDataset (rather than
lexicalDataset).


>
> 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.
>

We will send to you an update as soon as possible.



-- 
Manuel Fiorelli