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

Re: Minutes teleconference last Friday

From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 22:40:07 +0200
Message-ID: <555E42A7.209@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
To: public-ontolex@w3.org
Hi Gil,

  thanks, good point. I will take this into account when doing the final 
editing.

Kind regards,

Philipp.

Am 13.05.15 um 19:00 schrieb Gil Francopoulo:
> 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.
>>>
>>
>

-- 
--
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 Thursday, 21 May 2015 20:40:45 UTC

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