Re: lexicog and LexicalConcepts

Thank you Julia, I think it looks really great.
Did the original diagram have a difference in color between concepts
introduced in lexicog and core model concepts?

All the best,
Christian

Am Mo., 17. Jan. 2022 um 10:22 Uhr schrieb Sander Stolk <ssstolk@gmail.com>:

> Dear Julia,
>
>
>
> Please reverse the arrow for ontolex:evokes. :)
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Sander
>
>
>
> *[image: Universiteit Leiden]*
>
>
> *Sander Stolk, MSc MA*PhD Researcher Digital Humanities
> Home: Profile
> <https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/staffmembers/sander-stolk> |
> Twitter: @ssstolk <https://twitter.com/ssstolk> | Evoke: evoke.ullet.net
>
>
>
> *From: *Julia Bosque Gil <jbosque@unizar.es>
> *Sent: *14 January 2022 14:11
> *To: *Christian Chiarcos <christian.chiarcos@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *Jorge Gracia del Río <jogracia@unizar.es>; public-ontolex
> <public-ontolex@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: lexicog and LexicalConcepts
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>