Re: ontolex module ready for final discussion

Hi Elena, all,

  I try to answer your comments below...

Regards,

Philipp.

Am 07.05.15 um 16:59 schrieb Elena Montiel Ponsoda:
> 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?
>

                 Well, exactly because of the "colour" example you 
mention below. The pronunciation of "colour" and "color" is the same, 
but they are not morphologically related, are they? We do not want to 
have two lexical entires, that's why we need the "OR" in the definition.

                 For the case of "advertisement": it would be one entry 
with *one* form and two different pronunciations of this form. We can 
add this example if it help. Why are you implying that the definition 
requires to have two entries? It is one entry with one form and two 
pronunciations of the latter.

> ·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.
>

               see above
>
> ·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
>

              That's fine. I will adopt it.
>
> ·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.
>

               I do not understand, sorry.
>
> ·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.
>
                Right, I will add the labels. Fortunately, this is not a 
principled problem ;-)

> ·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”?
>

            Yes, this is something to talk about.
>
> ·Below OtherForm: “For example we may specify non-canonical forms of 
> the verb ""marry"" as follows:” Double quotation marks!
>

            OK
>
> ·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
>

               owl:Thing is the class comprising all owl:individuals, it 
does not include classes or properties... however using a property or 
class as reference makes an individual technically, so probably it is 
fine to add the axiom. In any, case owl:Thing is the default, so we do 
not need to add it.

> ·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…
>

               We can.
>
> ·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.
>

             I added this without consulting anybody else as I 
understood that was a request from the community. The picture has to be 
updated.
>
> ·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
>

               What is the point here?
>
> ·It is unclear why Lexicon is a subclass of void:Dataset (sorry if 
> this has been discussed previously)
>

              Yes, we discussed this to be able to attach metadata 
properties to a Lexicon as a dataset.
>
> ·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.
>>
>

-- 
--
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