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

Re: lexicog and LexicalConcepts

From: Julia Bosque Gil <jbosque@unizar.es>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 14:10:24 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+B92MtY=pNFrE-z92g26A37XRV_J0sFpFwf-b6KDfWGp364aQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christian Chiarcos <christian.chiarcos@gmail.com>
Cc: Jorge Gracia del Río <jogracia@unizar.es>, public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Dear Christian, Jorge, all,

Please find attached a possible modification to the diagram including
LexicalConcept.

Best regards,

Julia


El mié, 5 ene 2022 a las 16:57, Christian Chiarcos (<
christian.chiarcos@gmail.com>) escribió:

> 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
>>>
>>

-- 
Julia Bosque-Gil
Aragon Institute of Engineering Research (I3A)
University of Zaragoza
Pronouns: she/her

ontolex-lexicography-2022-01-LexicalConcept.png
(image/png attachment: ontolex-lexicography-2022-01-LexicalConcept.png)

Received on Friday, 14 January 2022 13:10:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 14 January 2022 13:10:54 UTC