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

Re: ontolex module ready for final discussion

From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 08:26:09 +0200
Message-ID: <554C5701.4070501@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
To: Elena Montiel Ponsoda <emontiel@fi.upm.es>, public-ontolex@w3.org
Hi Elena,

  further to your comments below:

1) Can you send me the pronunciation of advertisement in American and 
British English in IPA scheme please? I will add the example.

2) I adopted the changes you proposed for affix, please check that this 
is what you wanted.

3) We will talk about the at most one written representation per tag => 
I will propose to drop this constraint

4) We will talk again about the definition of Lexical Entry

5) I propose not to add owl:Thing to the range of "reference". It is 
implicit and emphasizing it might be confusing... I will explain

6) I propose to either introduce a property "usage" for a Lexical Sense 
or extend the domain of "definition" to include Lexical Senses. I prefer 
the first one.

7) Lexicon as a dataset: we will clarify during the meeting

8) Please send me the text you want to appear for LexicalSense. I could 
not understand from your email which change you are proposing.

I update the agenda: 



Am 07.05.15 um 22:52 schrieb Philipp Cimiano:
> 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

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
Received on Friday, 8 May 2015 06:29:34 UTC

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