- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:35:46 +0000
- To: <volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
- Cc: "Webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Well in that case I see your requirement as part of the general "tagging" one, and not related to the issue of providing multi-lingual display of object labels (although I suppose we could choose to consider "displayable labels" to be a special case of the tagging requirement). Ian On February 26, Raphael Volz writes: > Hi, > > the point is not to "apply some form of NL" to such labels, but > to have a means to categorize labels to meet certain application > requirements, one example is to be able to tag concepts with word stems, > as this is required if you want to classify documents according to > a set of concepts. > > This would also be a requirement if any lexical resource such as WordNet > ought to be represented in OWL, there concepts correspond to synsets which > are referenced by several words (which are synonym to each other). > > Thus, I'ld want to leave this flexibility in the language. > > Raphael > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > Von: Ian Horrocks [mailto:horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Februar 2002 13:33 > An: volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de > Cc: Jeremy Carroll; Webont > Betreff: Re: AW: Lexical representations > > > I liked the revised text. The use made of labels by Applications such > as the one Raphael describes may try to apply some form of NL > understanding to such labels, but that is beyond the scope of OWL. If > calling such labels "lexical representations" suggests that such a > usage is intended, then that is another reason for changing to > "displayable labels". In any case, being able to determine the > language of the label can only help to improve this kind of analysis > can't it? - the way things are now you might be applying an English > based analysis to French labels. > > Ian > > > On February 25, Raphael Volz writes: > > I'm opposed to changing the text from lexical representations to user > > displayable texts. > > Many of our applications indeed rely heavily on lexical representations. > > E.g. we use word stems to provide references from documents to ontological > > entities in our > > conceptual search application. Word stems are lexical representations for > > ontological > > entities but not intended for user display at all. Some subset of lexical > > representations > > that is labels / documentations are intended for human consumption. > > > > Raphael > > > > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > > Von: www-webont-wg-request@w3.org > > [mailto:www-webont-wg-request@w3.org]Im Auftrag von Jeremy Carroll > > Gesendet: Freitag, 22. Februar 2002 10:54 > > An: Peter F. Patel-Schneider > > Cc: www-webont-wg > > Betreff: RE: Lexical representations > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I don't think that this does the trick. An ontology > > > identifier is, I think, a URI reference. At least that is what the > second > > > requirement appears to be saying. > > > > > > > Ahh. > > > > I think you are saying that the term "ontology identifier" is being used > for > > two different things. In the second req. as the identifier for an > ontology, > > in this req. as an identifier for some object within the ontology. > > > > I didn't feel very comfortable with your "If ..." since that appeared to > be > > weakening the requirement to an optional one (although I don't think that > > was your intent). > > > > How about hacking "same ontology identifier" to be "same identifier of an > > object within an ontology". It's a bit wordy, but I hope it's good enough. > > i.e. the whole section being: > > > > > > [[[ > > User displayable labels > > ======================= > > The language must support specifying multiple alternative user displayable > > labels for the same identifier of an object within an ontology . > > This can be used, for example, to view the ontology in different natural > > languages. > > ]]] > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2002 08:37:12 UTC