RE: about the definition of LexicalConcept in the specs

Thanks John and Alexandre for your answers,

I'm aware of the many gaps in many wordnets. The fact of starting from synsets (as in EWN) instead of aligning them a posteriori is even questionable but obviously, it has its positive aspects and practical necessities when starting such big coordinated efforts, so I see it more as a acceptable deviation from the mission, in order to produce aligned synsets across languages, than a theoretically-founded  approach.

I fully agree with John on relying on the "purpose of the resource", so if such a resource as an "onomasiological lexicon" exists, then it's ok to have its concepts typed as LexicalConcepts. Still think that, from the eye of a potential Ontolex/Lemon user who is not familiar with the model and is reading the specs, that part sounds a little ambiguous, that's why I suggested to make the definition more clear and explicit on its intentions, and then allow users to deal with their platypuses ;-)

Cheers,

Armando



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandre Rademaker [mailto:arademaker@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:26 PM
> To: John McCrae <john@mccr.ae>
> Cc: Armando Stellato <stellato@uniroma2.it>; public-ontolex@w3.org
> Subject: Re: about the definition of LexicalConcept in the specs
> 
> Even PWN has such gaps. Many synset were created only to have a clear
> hierarchy. But PWN used MWEs in such cases.
> 
> Alexandre
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> > On 20 Apr 2017, at 07:56, John McCrae <john@mccr.ae> wrote:
> >
> > As such, it should be noted that for many wordnets created for languages
> other than English, there are gaps where the English synset is not lexicalized
> in the target language but they still exist in the hierarchy, hence they are
> unlexicalized lexical concepts, so the semasialogical/onomasiological
> distinction does not quite fit in all cases.

Received on Friday, 21 April 2017 08:37:17 UTC