W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ontolex@w3.org > May 2015

Re: ontolex module ready for final discussion

From: Elena Montiel Ponsoda <emontiel@fi.upm.es>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 16:59:51 +0200
Message-ID: <554B7DE7.8000200@fi.upm.es>
To: public-ontolex@w3.org, Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Dear Philipp, all

We had read carefully the core module and would like to make the 
following comments:

·Definition of LexicalEntry class: “The class *lexical entry* represents 
a single unit of analysis in the lexicon comprising a collection of 
forms that are morphologically related or have a single pronunciation 
and have the same set of meanings.”

oWhy morphologically related “or” have a single pronunciation? Isn’t the 
use of “or” a bit inaccurate?

oRegarding the fact of having “a single pronunciation”, what happens 
with a word like “advertisement” with an American and a British 
pronunciation? Why should we have two lexical entries for this? In fact, 
the same lexical entry would be pointing to two different lexical forms 
with different phonetic representations, right?

·We would like to suggest this definition: The class lexical entry 
represents a single unit of analysis in the lexicon comprising a 
collection of forms with the same set of meanings and morphologically 
related.

·In the following sentence: “Lexical entries are further specialized 
into /Word/, /Affix/ (e.g., suffix, prefix or circumfix) and 
/MultiwordExpression/ for example”, we would suggest to include infix as 
an example of Affix and change “or” by “and”, since you are providing 
some examples.

·As for the definition of Affix, we would suggest “The class *affix* 
represents is a morpheme (suffix, prefix, circumfix, etc.) that is 
attached to a word stem to form a new word.”, rephrasing Wikipedia… J

·Below example 2, you say: “one for the British English written 
representation "colour" and one for the American English written 
representation”, we would add “color”, i.e., the American Eng. Repr.

·General comment: The entities in ontolex.owl ontology do not have 
rdfs:label, is there a reason for that? In fact, we think there should 
be rdfs:labels in different languages.

·The explanation below example 4 “_Each form should have exactly one 
written representation per language tag_, but there are no restrictions 
on the number of associated phonetic representations”, could be 
debatable…Why do we need to be so restrictive? “exactly one”?

·Below OtherForm: “For example we may specify non-canonical forms of the 
verb ""marry"" as follows:” Double quotation marks!

·Below example 10 : “Thus, it is not possible to specify the range of 
denotes in OWL”, we think that this statement is inaccurate or too 
categorical, since one could say owl:Thing. Moreover, in the definition 
of LexicalSense, the range as been defined as being owl:Thing

·Comment regarding the inclusion of properties in the core: why do we 
make explicit properties such as “morphologicalPattern” in the 
LexicalEntry class, and cannot include the property “usage” in the 
LexicalSense class? We think the inclusion of that property would make 
clearer what the purpose of having LexicalSense in the model is. For a 
complete categorization of the types of usages we would then be pointing 
to an external model…

·As for the Definition property  you say that the domain can be a 
LexicalConcept or a LexicalSense, but this is neither reflected in the 
figure above nor in the LexicalSense and LexicalConcept descriptions.

·Below the class LexicalSense: “Via the lexical sense object we can 
attach additional properties to a pair of lexical entry _and ontological 
predicate that it_ denotes to describe under which conditions (context, 
register, domain, etc.) it is valid to regard the lexical entry as 
having the ontological entity as meaning. For example, we may wish to 
express the usages of the word "consumption" in terms of the topic and 
diachronic usage _of the word_.”: and the ontological predicate it 
denotes... in terms of the topic and its diachronic usage

·It is unclear why Lexicon is a subclass of void:Dataset (sorry if this 
has been discussed previously)

·In LexicalConcept: there is a spelling mistake in sublcas

We hope they help!

Elena, Lupe & Jorge

El 04/05/2015 a las 22:19, Philipp Cimiano escribió:
> Dear all,
>
>  the core module is now ready for the final discussion this week. 
> Please check the current version of the specification:
>
> https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Final_Model_Specification#Core
>
> The ontologies and code of examples is available here:
>
> https://github.com/cimiano/ontolex.git
>
> Please send me any final issues / changes you would like to have 
> implemented in the specification by Thursday.
>
> Looking forward to our discussion on Friday!
>
> Access details are here, as usual: 
> https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2015.5.8,_16-17_pm_CET
>
> Best regards,
>
> Philipp.
>
Received on Thursday, 7 May 2015 15:00:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:36:49 UTC