- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 08:26:09 +0200
- To: Elena Montiel Ponsoda <emontiel@fi.upm.es>, public-ontolex@w3.org
- Message-ID: <554C5701.4070501@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
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: https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2015.5.8,_16-17_pm_CET Regards, Philipp. 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 Germany
Received on Friday, 8 May 2015 06:29:34 UTC