RE: about the definition of LexicalConcept in the specs

Hi,

just a first attempt (reusing the initial text).

We have seen above that a certain lexical entry can be used to lexicalize a certain ontological entity. We capture this by saying that the lexical entry denotes<http://www.w3.org/2016/05/ontolex/#denotes> the class or ontology element in question. However, sometimes we would like to create concepts expressly to give meaning to lexical entries in a Lexicon. Thus, in lemon we introduce the class Lexical Concept<http://www.w3.org/2016/05/ontolex/#LexicalConcept>, which represents a mental abstraction, concept or unit of thought that embodies the meaning of one or more lexical entries. Lexical Concepts also support the identification of synonyms, as different lexical entries having senses referring to the same Lexical Concept are considered to be synonym.

A lexical concept<http://www.w3.org/2016/05/ontolex/#LexicalConcept> is a subclass of skos:Concept<http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept>.

Sure it’s not meant as an immediate replacement, but if there’s any direction for W3C recommendation, the above could fit (if agreed) the next iteration of the specs.

Cheers,

Armando


From: johnmccrae@gmail.com [mailto:johnmccrae@gmail.com] On Behalf Of John McCrae
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 1:29 PM
To: Armando Stellato <stellato@uniroma2.it>
Cc: Alexandre Rademaker <arademaker@gmail.com>; public-ontolex@w3.org
Subject: Re: about the definition of LexicalConcept in the specs

Hi Armando,

Perhaps you can suggest an alternative wording?

I don't think we plan to update the specification anytime soon, but if the changes are made to the working copy then they should go in next time we revise the document.

Regards,
John

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Armando Stellato <stellato@uniroma2.it<mailto:stellato@uniroma2.it>> wrote:
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<mailto:arademaker@gmail.com>]
> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:26 PM
> To: John McCrae <john@mccr.ae<mailto:john@mccr.ae>>
> Cc: Armando Stellato <stellato@uniroma2.it<mailto:stellato@uniroma2.it>>; public-ontolex@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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.