- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 08:24:47 +0200
- To: public-ontolex@w3.org
- Message-ID: <a11099a2-2345-1ac5-543c-c530f7f493ee@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Dearl all, thanks to John for the minutes and to Julia for the detailed response to Sander. Personally, I am not convinved about renaming "DictionaryEntry" to "SuperEntry". First "DictionaryEntry" says nothing about whether a dictionary is printed. According to WIkipedia: A *dictionary*, sometimes known as a *wordbook*, is a collection of words <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word> in one or more specific languages <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language>, often arranged alphabetically <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabetical_order> (or by radical and stroke <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical-and-stroke_sorting> for ideographic <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideographic> languages), which may include information on definitions <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition>, usage, etymologies <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymologies>, pronunciations <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciation>, translation, etc.^[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary#cite_note-Web1-1> or a book of words in one language with their equivalents in another, sometimes known as a lexicon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicon>.^[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary#cite_note-Web1-1> It is a lexicographical <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicography> product which shows inter-relationships among the data.^[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary#cite_note-2> The relevant terms are: collection and most importantly to me "lexicographical product which shows inter-relationships among data". I quite like this. A dictionary is primarly a conscious and deliberate arrangement of lexical entries / words into collections, making lexicographic choices what to group, etc. The word "product" makes clear that a dictionary is an artifact that makes choices on how to present / group and describe language. It is a meta-object. The view of a dictionary as a lexicographic product which shows inter-relationships among the data is fine for our purposes. We could in fact even use this definition for our module. Under this definition it would be more than appropriate to call our object DictionaryEntry. I am fine with having one property describes with multiple (defined) ranges. Other than that, I would like to propose that we have our next telco on the 30th of April, if possible at 14:00 CET. Leet me know if this works out. Kind regards, Philipp. Am 09.04.18 um 17:13 schrieb John McCrae: > Hi Julia, > > Yes that is certainly what I meant to say :) > > Regards, > John > > On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 4:03 PM, Julia Bosque Gil <jbosque@fi.upm.es > <mailto:jbosque@fi.upm.es>> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Just a minor clarification for a line in the minutes from today: > > 'SuperEntry' is a better name than 'LexicalEntry' --> > 'SuperEntry' is a better name than 'DictionaryEntry' > > > Cheers, > > Julia > > > 2018-04-09 14:38 GMT+02:00 John McCrae > <john.mccrae@insight-centre.org > <mailto:john.mccrae@insight-centre.org>>: > > Hi all, > > The minutes from today are below: > > Present: Julia, Francesca, Ilan, John > > https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Lexicography > <https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Lexicography> > Issues raised by Sander: > JBG: Use of two properties describesEntry and describesSense, > but dictionaries describe much more than entries and senses. > JBG: Single describes property with multiple range? > JBG:Is this sufficient to capture the structure of a dictionary > JM: Probably sufficent, but some risk of not capturing all > dictionaries > One property with multiple ranges may be more flexible than > multiple properties > Technical distinction between ranges of 'describes' but is > there a semantic distinction? > JM: probably technically okay to have a single property > JBG: SuperEntry of subEntry? > JM: I think this is an error in my minutes. It should be > SuperEntry > FF: We aren't representing a digital version of a print > dictionary, so is dictionary entry the right name? > JBG: if a dictionary entry only has senses for nouns ontolex > core is sufficient. however the dictionary has senses for > multiple pos I must use DictionaryEntry. The use of dictionary > entry implies the existence of a paper dictionary. > JM: super entry is like an 'entry group' (as previously > proposed) so perhaps SuperEntry is a better name > FF: shows that lexical entries do not occur by themselves > IK: what is meant by typographical? what is the purpose of > lexicography module? > aims is to represent linguistic information (JM: broadly true) > JBG: yeah, some things are not linguistic, but somehow > logical, e.g., sense orderings > JBG: In next telco we should repeat the goal of the module > > Key Points: > 'describe' as a property with multiple ranges is acceptable > 'SuperEntry' is a better name than 'LexicalEntry' > goal of OntoLex is not same as TEI > > IK: how this relates to dictionaries. What about senses, when > many lexicographers (e.g., Kilgariff) reject them? > JBG: we provide enough tools to represent dictionaries > JM: OntoLex is quite opinionated as to what 'entries' and > 'senses' mean, so we need to bridge this with other > representations > IK: Looking at future goals is important too. 'SuperEntry' is > more forward-looking > > Next Telco: > 23rd is difficult for some so postpone to 30 Apr, 13:00 CEST. > > Regards, > John > > > > > -- > > Julia Bosque Gil > PhD Student > Ontology Engineering Group <http://www.oeg-upm.net/> > Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial > Universidad Politécnica de Madrid > > -- -- 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, 19 April 2018 06:25:39 UTC