W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ontolex@w3.org > January 2022

Re: lexicog and LexicalConcepts

From: Jorge Gracia del Río <jogracia@unizar.es>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2022 09:26:07 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMe8T+uHMrQapHUSawFe=VqcaknaruX-xOF7dNmRoOCe9Px8Rg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christian Chiarcos <christian.chiarcos@gmail.com>
Cc: public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Dear Christian, all,

Happy New Year! As for including LexicalConcept in figure 1 of the lexicog
specification, that's an interesting point; however, I would tend not to
overload the diagram. From the definition of lexicog:describes it's clear
that using ontolex:LexicalConcept as range is perfectly valid. But other
elements as well (e.g., for etymology description). Thus, I'd not be
exhaustive and just keep LexicalSense and LexicalEntry in the figure as the
most frequent ones ("there is beauty in simplicity"). But I have no strong
opinion against including LexicalConcept in the figure, if this is
perceived as an important gap.

Best regards,
Jorge


El mié, 8 dic 2021 a las 9:01, Christian Chiarcos (<
christian.chiarcos@gmail.com>) escribió:

> Dear all,
>
> as the range of lexicog:describes is left open, could we add
> LexicalConcept to
> https://www.w3.org/2019/09/lexicog/img/ontolex-lexicography-module_v.5.png?
> Not to have that shown there seems like a logical gap, esp. if you have a
> lexicographic resource that is organized according to conceptual criteria
> (say, traditional Chinese dictionaries, organized by radical).
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Christian
>
Received on Wednesday, 5 January 2022 08:26:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 5 January 2022 08:26:34 UTC