Re: lexicog and LexicalConcepts

Dear Jorge,

happy New Year from my side, as well.

Am Mi., 5. Jan. 2022 um 09:26 Uhr schrieb Jorge Gracia del Río <
jogracia@unizar.es>:

> 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").
>

Yet another reason for resurrecting lemon:Element as a generalization over
Entry, Form, Sense and Concept ;) That would also massively simplify the
FrAC diagram. But that ship has sailed, I guess.


> But I have no strong opinion against including LexicalConcept in the
> figure, if this is perceived as an important gap.
>

I think it could play a role in terminology. It seems to be quite
controversial what a "term" should be, i.e., a conceptual unit (>
ontolex:LexicalConcept, but terminologists seem to feel this is too much of
a messy category to build on) or a representational one (> lexicog:Entry),
but if the latter, it must be closely associated with a conceptual unit,
and that could be done by the lexicog:describes relation or a designated
subproperty. An ontolex:LexicalConcept would then be a natural candidate,
but (thanks to the open range) not the only one. But while we don't need
exhaustivity against the world, not having that against the core model
looks like this particular usage is discouraged.

Best,
Christian


>
> 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
>>
>