Dear Julia,

Please reverse the arrow for ontolex:evokes. :)

Best wishes,

Sander

Sander Stolk, MSc MA
PhD Researcher Digital Humanities
Home: Profile | Twitter: @ssstolk | Evoke: evoke.ullet.net

From: Julia Bosque Gil
Sent: 14 January 2022 14:11
To: Christian Chiarcos
Cc: Jorge Gracia del Río; public-ontolex
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