W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ontolex@w3.org > July 2018

RE: {Disarmed} Re: Inconsistent capitalization of "multiwordexpression" between the specification and the ontology

From: Armando Stellato <stellato@uniroma2.it>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:37:06 +0000
To: John McCrae <john.mccrae@insight-centre.org>
CC: public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DB6PR1001MB1013F5FE2AF17CE2DB4C5D8CC7530@DB6PR1001MB1013.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Hi John,

Oh sure, I started from your statement about the probable correctness of Multiword vs MultiWord. If MultiWord works as well, let’s keep the ontology whole and consider a fix in the specs

Cheers,

Armando

From: John McCrae <john.mccrae@insight-centre.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 8:54 AM
To: Armando Stellato <stellato@uniroma2.it>
Cc: public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Subject: {Disarmed} Re: Inconsistent capitalization of "multiwordexpression" between the specification and the ontology

Hi Armando,

I would tend to agree, however in this case the correct English spelling is unclear, so that Oxford <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wiktionary.org%2Fwiki%2Fmulti-word&data=02%7C01%7C%7C91522d661b0146dd0e2008d5ec7b3aa7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636674936356455416&sdata=MJ1ieZbzdMVFdQD2%2Fd0vcfCGNKAxPYZyR9P7%2B15n4%2Bc%3D&reserved=0> only accepts 'multi-word', while Wiktionary <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wiktionary.org%2Fwiki%2Fmulti-word&data=02%7C01%7C%7C91522d661b0146dd0e2008d5ec7b3aa7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636674936356455416&sdata=MJ1ieZbzdMVFdQD2%2Fd0vcfCGNKAxPYZyR9P7%2B15n4%2Bc%3D&reserved=0> accepts both 'multi-word' and 'multiword' (which Google adds a red squiggly line to on my computer). As such, I think we could go for either spelling and I would like to avoid deprecating terms.

Regards,
John

On 17 July 2018 at 16:16, Armando Stellato <stellato@uniroma2.it<mailto:stellato@uniroma2.it>> wrote:
Dear John,

that’s the same practical consideration I had. On the other side it is a pity to have a term mistyped (let’s say, overCamelCased :D ) just because it has been overlooked in the ontology.

I would propose this (if you and others agree and if it is possible do to this change in a reasonable time)


•        Replace-all MultiWordExpression with MultiwordExpression (that is the definition and mentions)

•        Add a @deprecated MultiWordExpression class which is owl:equivalentClassOf MultiwordExpression so all old data importing the new version of the ontology(ies) will remain consistent, but any new client will know that they should use the proper name

Cheers,

Armando



From: John McCrae <john.mccrae@insight-centre.org<mailto:john.mccrae@insight-centre.org>>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 4:13 PM
To: public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fw3.org&data=02%7C01%7C%7C91522d661b0146dd0e2008d5ec7b3aa7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636674936356455416&sdata=G9dSLGPJQrl1gjUrZ0LgPCOLej5xnDmzKSDArxq%2FR6g%3D&reserved=0>>
Subject: Re: Inconsistent capitalization of "multiwordexpression" between the specification and the ontology


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: John McCrae <john.mccrae@insight-centre.org<mailto:john.mccrae@insight-centre.org>>
Date: Mon 16 Jul 2018, 16:08
Subject: Re: Inconsistent capitalization of "multiwordexpression" between the specification and the ontology
To: Manuel Fiorelli <manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com<mailto:manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com>>

Hi Manuel,

Thanks for this. It probably should be MultiwordExpression like in the specification, but I think it is easier to change the specification than the ontology. So I would propose we keep the ontology and use MultiWordExpression.

Any other opinions?

Regards,
John

On Mon 16 Jul 2018, 15:59 Manuel Fiorelli, <manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com<mailto:manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear all

I've just spotted an inconsistency between the specification (MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com". Do not trust this website: https://www.w3.org/2016/05/ontolex/#lexical-entries<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2016%2F05%2Fontolex%2F%23lexical-entries&data=02%7C01%7C%7C49377246f13245ab4b3608d5eb29bce5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636673486843419425&sdata=nyGAnhwqw0a3O7e%2FX%2B%2BYp6znn037oySdfgxKlY6DxyE%3D&reserved=0>) and the ontology (MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com". Do not trust this website: https://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex.rdf<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2Fns%2Flemon%2Fontolex.rdf&data=02%7C01%7C%7C49377246f13245ab4b3608d5eb29bce5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636673486843419425&sdata=BvkiyfLSPum0OyQtT%2BzuFCc%2BAPfgHV3CKW6erafl89E%3D&reserved=0>):

  *   the specification contains ontolex:MultiwordExpression (the word "word" is lower case)
  *   the ontology contains ontolex:MultiWordExpression (the word "Word" is upper case)
I don't know whether the specification or the ontology should prevail in such cases, but for sure if I follow the specification my "multi word expressions" will be missclassified by an ontology reasoner.

Without delving into the general case, in this specific situation which alternative is the right one?

--
Manuel Fiorelli

Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2018 07:37:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:37:02 UTC