- From: Gil Francopoulo <gil.francopoulo@wanadoo.fr>
- Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 19:00:13 +0200
- To: public-ontolex@w3.org
- Message-ID: <5553831D.6060304@wanadoo.fr>
Dear Elena and Philipp, My two cents: I suggest that the definitions should follow a common genus-differentia pattern like this: X is an Y that Z see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus%E2%80%93differentia_definition Bonne journée, Gil Le 13/05/2015 17:43, Elena Montiel Ponsoda a écrit : > 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 directly”. > > 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! > Best, > 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 17:00:32 UTC