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

Re: Minutes teleconference last Friday

From: Elena Montiel Ponsoda <emontiel@fi.upm.es>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 17:43:00 +0200
Message-ID: <55537104.9070109@fi.upm.es>
To: public-ontolex@w3.org
Dear Philipp,

Some comments (to format, structure…), typos, and reflections to the 
Core Module part:

1.In our (humble) opinion, we should check that all definitions follow 
the same format, don’t you think so? See for example, ObjectProperty: 
Usage and ObjectProperty Domain. The former starts with “The object 
property…” and the latter “Provides…”.

2.The other of items (Domain, Range, Characteristics…) is not consistent 
in all classes, i.e. it does not keep parallelism. For instance, in the 
Object properties Sense and Reference, the order is not the same.

3.In the Object Property Sense there is a typo in the word Characteristics.

4.In the class LexicalSense there is a typo in “it might nottttttttt be 

5.In the Usage object property the preposition “of” is missing… “in the 
use oofff”.

6.Also, the sentence just before example 12 has some mistakes: “The 
details of conditions are mostly left to application IN (preposition 
missing!) specific vocabularies, but they could be given as natural 
_langauge_ descriptions, e.g.,”.

7.Shouldn’t we specify a Range for the Usage object property?

8.What is the difference between rdfs:Literal and rdf:StringLang?

9.In example 15, we would say that a more appropriate lexicalization of 
the spouse relation in Spanish would be “casarse” or even “casarse con”, 
since it is a reflexive use of the verb.

10.In the ObjectProperty: Evokes, you refer to the propertyChain sense 
or isLexicalizedSense of, what is the propertyChain doing?

11.In example 18, is there a reason for indistinctly using 
“ontolex:isConceptOf dbpedia:Tuberculosis ;” and “ontolex:isConceptOf 
<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Consumption_(Economics)> ;”.

We are working on the SynSem module. Comments to come next week. :)
Shönen Himmelfahrt Tag!
Lupe and Elena

El 11/05/2015 a las 9:04, Philipp Cimiano escribió:
> Dear all,
>  I summarize the outcomes and decisions made during the telco last 
> Friday:
> 1) Domain of ontolex:language
> We decided to unconstrain the domain of ontolex:language and instead 
> add a = 1 ontolex:language axiom to the ontolex:Lexicon, 
> ontolex:LexicalEntry and lime:LexicalizationSet classes. The doman of 
> ontolex:language would thus be OWL:thing
> 2) Form should have minimum one writtenRep with range rdf:langString
> 3) The range of ontolex:language should be rdfs:Literal
> 4) We should drop the constraint on there being just one written 
> representation per language tag as this is questionable and further it 
> can not be axiomtaized in OWL anyway.
> 5) Example 10 is infelicitous as there should be two lexical entries 
> for "bank" as in the case of geographic vs. financial meaning this is 
> a case of homonymy. So in this case there should be two lexical 
> entries. I will correct the example.
> 6)  Example 9: for the sake of this example I will change the 
> denotation to <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Marriage>
> 7) We decided to keep dct:subject as property to assign a topic to a 
> sense as this is the corresponding property from Dublin Core for this:
> 8) We decided to change the definition of affix to:
> "The class affix represents is a morpheme (suffix, prefix, infix, 
> circumfix, etc.) that is attached to a word stem to form a new word."
> 9) We decided to change the definition of lexical entry to:
> "Lexical Entry is a unit of analysis of lexicon, that consist of a set 
> of forms that are grammatically related and a set of base meanings 
> that are associated with all of these forms. Thus, a lexical entry is 
> a word, multiword expression or affix with a single part-of-speech, 
> morphological pattern, etymology and set of senses."
> 10) We agreed to have domain and ranges for all properties, so I will 
> add also owl:Thing to the range of "reference" for the sake of 
> completeness (we discussed this differently during the telco, but to 
> ensure consistency I propose we indeed explicitly indicate the range 
> here, same for isSenseOf).
> 11) We decided to rename the property "condition" to "usage" and add 
> it to the core module.
> 12) We briefly repeated the rationale for declaring a Lexicon as a 
> dataset.
> TODOs:
> Elena/Lupe: to send me the updated definition of "Lexical Sense"
> John: fix the namespaces
> That's it for now. Thanks to all those who attended the telco.
> I will implement these changes today.
> The next telco will be on the 22nd of Mai, 16:00 CET. We will discuss 
> the synsem module then.
> I will send an email on this soon.
> Kind regards,
> Philipp.
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2015 15:43:23 UTC

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