W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ontolex@w3.org > April 2017

RE: about the definition of LexicalConcept in the specs

From: Armando Stellato <stellato@uniroma2.it>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:36:41 +0000
To: Alexandre Rademaker <arademaker@gmail.com>, John McCrae <john@mccr.ae>
CC: "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AM4PR1001MB1410226A0A2636FBFF46FC67C71A0@AM4PR1001MB1410.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
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 ;-)



> -----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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:36:57 UTC