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

Re: ontolex module ready for final discussion

From: John P. McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 13:32:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC5njqpS49nyTOK38QUUp-4wLOnM3h9o8Rcfd-9RzOe3GtcmmQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fahad Khan <anasfkhan81@gmail.com>
Cc: public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Hi Fahad,

Dealing with different scripts is the same as in example 3 in the spec. You
simply give each form with a different language tag (pa-Guru for Gurmukhi,
and pa-Arab* for Shahmukhi).

- I agree, 'bank' should be two different lexical entries as they are
actually two words (lexical entries) that coincidentally have the same form
in modern English. In German this fact is clearer as the word Bank has a
different plural based on its meaning (you sit on 'Bänke' and put money in
'Banken').
- Ex 9 actually shows the difference between concepts and references. The
property 'spouse' can be expressed by the verb 'marry' (e.g., 'Barack Obama
is married to Michelle') but the concepts are clearly not related.
- DC defines 'subject' as literally 'The topic of the resource'.

Regards,
John

* This is a guess, perhaps it is better to ask on the W3C
internationalization mailing list, maybe someone there would know better.

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Fahad Khan <anasfkhan81@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ooops I just realised i sent my first mail just to philipp and not to the
> rest of the list....my bad! Here it is
>
> Dear Philipp, list,
> I just wanted to ask for clarification on something. You talk about there
> being just one written representation per language tag but then how would
> you deal with the case of a language that uses two different scripts --
> without having to make the potentially fraught, decision of which is the
> default script? For example, Punjabi is written using two completely
> different scripts, Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi, and from what I understand there
> is no default standard script for the language
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjabi_language#Writing_systems. What if I
> want to construct a Punjabi language lexicon in which I have both forms
> available (and without having to have two different languages for two
> different scripts)?
>
> Also, and  this isn't necessarily a problem for the core model, but some
> of the examples in the document are a bit odd.
>  - the bank example: the two different meanings attached to the word form
> bank are usually regarded as two different, homophonous, entries. Perhaps
> it would be better to use bank_as_buidling and bank_as_institution in the
> given example since one could argue that these should go under the same
> entity.
> - Example 9:I don't think it's a good idea to have Spouse as the reference
> or denotation of the word "to marry"
> - Example 11: To say that a topic is the *subject* of the sense of a word
> is a bit odd -- it seems a bit ontologically/metaphoricallly bothersome to
> me -- so I don't know how appropriate the use of the dc property is in this
> case. Maybe it's better to have something more like context of use.
>
> Finally, the lemon LIAM link is dead.
> Cheers,
> Fahad and Francesca
>
> On 4 May 2015 at 22:19, Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Friday, 8 May 2015 11:33:16 UTC

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