Re: about the definition of LexicalConcept in the specs

Thanks, Armando.

I have updated the definition in the working copy of the specification:
http://cimiano.github.io/ontolex/specification.html#lexical-concept

Regards,
John

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Armando Stellato <stellato@uniroma2.it>
wrote:

> 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>
> 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]
> > 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.
>
>
>