Core Model Poll

From Ontology-Lexica Community Group
Jump to: navigation, search

Please enter your name and optionally short comment (140 characters) to vote (Yay=yes, Nay=no)

Do you agree with the core model's structure as currently defined?

Formal definition of the OntoLex Core Model in Manchester OWL Syntax

OntoLexCore.png

Yay

John McCrae

Jorge Gracia

Alessandro Oltramari

Aldo Gangemi

Guido Vetere: I agree with most of the general ideas behind the model. However, there are relevant open issues that need to be addressed. Some of them are subject of other specific questions in this poll (i.e. the range of 'reference', the formal use of other models), which may require significant changes to the current proposal.

Elena Montiel

Wim Peters

Guadalupe Aguado

Armando Stellato: though that "contains"..still have to digest it :-) Btw, no better solution at the moment.

Philipp Cimiano

Thierry Declerck; (Since I am new/back to this topic, 2 comments: the "denotes" edge is new to me, but I tend to egree. But is "denotes" identical to "sense" + "reference" or to be used only when no lexical sense is available?). I do not like the word "evokes" (Wiktionary def: To cause the manifestation of something (emotion, picture, etc.) in someone's mind or imagination.) I prefer "expresses".

Nay

Do you agree with the definitions of the core elements as given?

Lexical Concept A language-specific collection of senses that have a common meaning.
Lexicon The lexicon represents a collection of entries describing the vocabulary used by an ontology -- (AG: A lexicon represents a collection of lexical entries, which can be used as elements of the vocabulary of an ontology, +1 from AS)
Lexical Entry A single unit of analysis in the lexicon, i.e. a collection of morphologically related forms, all of which denote the same concept(s). -- (AG: ..., all of which express a shared sense)-- (GAC: ...all of which denote a single concept) -- (AS: we must be self-consistent, so, while denotes the same concept(s) is ok in general, I would say evokes as this is in line with our model.)
Form The form represents a single inflected unit of a lexical entry with a single pronunciation, although potentially many orthographies
Lexical Sense A language-specific meaning of a lexical entry which abstracts from specific occurrences of the lemma. This class is a lexical sense as it represents a sense of a lexical item. -- (AS: shouldn't it be LexicalEntry ? to be consistent with the naming in our model)

Yay

Elena Montiel

Aldo Gangemi I agree in general, but I suggest some modifications as annotated above.

Wim Peters I agree with Aldo's suggested changes

Guadalupe Aguado I agree with Aldo's suggested changes, though I've included another comment. Shouldn't we be consistent with the definitions' format? Some start by using a synonym/hypernym, and some with a sentence. As for lexical sense, It is not clear for me the "extra" meaning that lexical has. In fact, it is the sense of a word. Will it represent the meaning of a word, term, or multiword unit (MWU)?

Armando Stellato: I agree in general, I suggest some modifications above. I've also a strong doubt about one comment from GAC (who's GAC?). GAC suggests "...all of which denote a single concept", while the original entry says "concept(s)". I think it should be as in the original one, as the forms are morphologically related, but a single entry may polisemous, and thus referring more concepts (or have more senses, as in Aldo's comment, same thing...). Also, think in general we should be self-consistent with the model (see my comments).

Philipp Cimiano Yes, fine with the suggestions of AG and AS

Thierry Declerck. Again since I am new, more question then a vote (I guess you have discussed this already :-) ). I do not understand the first defintion. Is it a kind of sub-lexicon then? What is the purpose of this "lexical concept"? (clarified for Thierry during telco)

Nay

Should we link directly to other models instead of using informal comments to link?

e.g., Do we include links such as:

ObjectProperty: ontolex:evokes

SubPropertyOf:
        semio:hasInterpretant

Yay

John McCrae: But only to other W3C models

Paul Buitelaar: But preferably to other W3C models

Jorge Gracia: But preferably to other W3C models

Alessandro Oltramari : But only to other W3C models

Aldo Gangemi : I'd link it to anything useful, but in particular to semiotics.owl, since it has been used substantially in shaping the current form of the model. In all cases, I am against non-motivated restrictions: the Semantic Web is about linking, not creating reserved areas.

Guido Vetere : But only to other W3C standard models

Elena Montiel

Wim Peters

Guadalupe Aguado: But preferably to other W3C models

Armando Stellato: Preferably to other W3C models, unless in strong need for something still not in W3C's fleet but widely adopted).

Philipp Cimiano: Yes, but not only to W3C models

Thierry Declerck: Yes, but not only to W3C models and preferably only to compelementary information.

Nay

Do you agree that the property reference does not have a formal range, but can refer to anything that has a URI?

i.e., Should we NOT include the following:

ObjectProperty: ontolex:reference

Range: rdfs:Class or rdf:Property or owl:Thing

Yay

John McCrae

Jorge Gracia

Paul Buitelaar

Alessandro Oltramari

Aldo Gangemi

Guido Vetere: I'm not against this choice but note that this would require major changes to the model (see the comment above)

Elena Montiel

Wim Peters

Guadalupe Aguado

Armando Stellato

Philipp Cimiano

Nay

Thierry Declerck Hmmm. Again, it will be the case that I have missed something. But if lemon is a lexicon model for ontology, which introduces senses/meaning/semantics by reference to an ontology element, the I would think that "reference" has an ontology element as its range, and not anything that has an URI. I think this is also in the comment by GV? Refering to "Thing" is ok for me.

Is the name of any property or class unsuitable and requires change?

Please indicate which property

No Changes

John McCrae

Alessandro Oltramari

Elena Montiel

Aldo Gangemi

Wim Peters

Armando Stellato

Philipp Cimiano yes in principle, modulo the names of inverse properties

Should the core be defined in separate namespace from further modules?

Yay

Alessandro Oltramari : Definitely yes, I think we need to properly address the issue of modularity.

Aldo Gangemi : The Core should have its own namespace, and its extensions should have their own

Jorge Gracia : This will benefit maintainability (modules can evolve independently without "touching" neither the core nor other modules) and usability (users will only deal with the part of the model that they really need).

Guido Vetere

Elena Montiel

Wim Peters

Guadalupe Aguado

Armando Stellato If we consider to have clearly separate modules (extensions), I would necessarily assign them separate namespaces

Nay

John McCrae: Multiple namespaces add confusion and make the model harder to apply

Philipp Cimiano: Different names spaces are going to compromise the usability of the model and make it more difficult to use.

Suggested Changes

Should the model be named 'OntoLex' or 'lemon' (Lexicon Model for Ontologies, see http://lemon-model.net/), on which the current model is based?

OntoLex

Alessandro Oltramari: it is based on Lemon but it's not coincident with it. Also, we want to communicate that this is the outcome of a W3C effort, not just an update of Lemon. I'm strongly in favor of using OntoLex.

Aldo Gangemi : This is a result of a W3C community effort, and the Core model has changed significantly from the original Lemon.

Guido Vetere: the name should reflect the w3c community, prior works (including Lemon) can be acknowledged aside

Wim Peters: the core model is a stand-alone module

Armando Stellato : as from Aldo's. Plus, we avoid any confusion with precedent use of Lemon

Philipp Cimiano: While for practical purposes it would be appropriate to name the model lemon and I am also biased in principle in this direction, I think naming the model "Ontolex" is indeed more justified to reflect that the model is based on a broader consensus and a product of the community group.

lemon

John McCrae: A few points:

  • The core model as it stands is coincident and backwards compatible with the lemon model, to my mind what we are voting on *is* lemon
  • Lemon is already a well-known name in the community and renaming will create not only confusion but also a competitor

Paul Buitelaar

Jorge Gracia : To take advantage of the growing community around lemon. I do not see the problem of saying that lemon is now the result of a community effort, avoiding the risk of confusing people by introducing yet another "brand" (LMF, LexInfo, LIR, lemon, ontolex, what is next?).

Elena Montiel

Guadalupe Aguado

Thierry Declerck Again more a question: is it not somehow the case that the actual version of lemon/OntoLex is the result of the work by the Ontolex group. Meaning the lemon is the implementation of this WG? But then I see that there is already a OntoLex core model ... I am neutral on this

Do you believe it would be advantageous to aim to transition the OntoLex W3C Community Group into a W3C Working Group?

Yay

Aldo Gangemi : WG is a boost for adoption, however, the months after the publishing of OntoLex will tell us if this group has been enough to gather adoption anyway.

Armando Stellato : as from Aldo's, plus I think it is a chicken'n'egg problem: we can't really get an idea of its potential adoption, 'cause many organizations wouldn't even consider it if this does not get W3C's blessing after a WG outcome.

Philipp Cimiano: Yes, at some stage, but I am inclined to do the work beforehand and release a specification as part of the community group. Then we can see whether we transition to a working group.

Nay

Paul Buitelaar unless clear WG tasks are defined that clearly go beyond the established CG tasks and are needed for defined use cases

Alessandro Oltramari same as Paul.

Elena Montiel same as Paul.

Guadalupe Aguado same as Paul.

Jorge Gracia : same as Paul. I have not a strong opinion against it, though. Simply I do not perceive the necessity at this moment.