- From: Jorge Gracia del Río <jogracia@unizar.es>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2022 09:26:07 +0100
- To: Christian Chiarcos <christian.chiarcos@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 5 January 2022 08:26:32 UTC
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