Re: synsem module ready

Hi John,

please read my answers below.

2015-05-18 15:50 GMT+02:00 John P. McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>:

>
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Manuel Fiorelli <
> manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There is no example (just below the definition of synsem:isA)about the
>> representation of unary predicates. Nor is there any example about the
>> representation of individuals.
>>
>> Example 8 uses isA... but perhaps we should make this clearer
>

I would suggest a preliminary example, and then clarify the role of isA in
example 8.


>
>> The definitions of synsem:{subj|obj}OfProp use the following wording:
>> "...property represents the semantic argument with represents"
>>
>>
In the definition you use the words "subjects" and "objects" at plural: not
sure, if it more appropriate to use the singular form.


>
> Just below Example synsem/example7, there is an example involving the
>> property father: the property should point to the child; however, the
>> name of the property suggests to me that the object is the father (just in
>> the same manner skos:broader points to the broader of a given concept).
>>
> I agree, fixed
>

I fear that the use of the inverseOf construct could be not very readable.
A simpler solution could be simply use "fatherOf", although I suspect that
this name does not conform with current best practices.


> I think that Example synsem/example9  should be explained in more detail.
>>
> Removed (it does not concern OntoLex)
>

:-D


>> I didn't find the definition of synsem:propertyDomain and
>> synsem:propertyRange; then, I realized that they were moved to the core
>> module. The diagram of the core module must be updated to include these
>> properties, as well as the diagram of the synsem module to remove them.
>>
>> I noticed that in the infobox providing the definition of propertyRange
>> and propertyDomain, the URI still uses the synsem namespace instead of the
>> core ontolex namespace.
>>
>
>> Yeah thinking about it makes absolutely no sense to have propertyRange
> and propertyDomain in the core, for the very simple reason: how can you
> restrict the range/domain of arguments when you can't define whether there
> are arguments in the first place!?
> There is also a technical dependency as the domain of propertyRange and
> propertyDomain should be synsem:SemanticFrame.
> As such, I have made the unilateral decision to restore condition,
> propertyRange and propertyDomain to the synsem module and to introduce them
> all as subproperties of ontolex:usage.
>

I think that the problem you describe is analogous to the problem we had
with the domain of ontolex:language, and the solution you applied seems
good to me.

-- 
Manuel Fiorelli