Talk:Terminology

From Ontology-Lexica Community Group

== TOTh workshop 2021

Notes, remarks and ideas arising from the TOTh workshop 2021.

What is a term?

Observation: Sometimes, terminologists and non-terminologists have different intuitive interpretations of "term". This should be made explicit in order to ensure consistent conversion.

Suggestion: introduce an explicit termlex:Term class for better orientation for terminologists.

Assumption (tbc.): a term has one single language and one or more possible (grammatically related) forms. That is, termlex:Term rdfs:subClassOf LexicalEntry

"lexicographic article"

Observation: In terminological resources, terms can be grouped into together into groups of meaning-equivalent terms. The lexicographic article will typically provide a definition, but can also provide information that does not refer to an underlying unit of meaning, e.g., historical notes on the use of the term, cf. https://www.termcat.cat/en/cercaterm/power?type=basic, second result ("Note" on earlier use of "power" [cat. poder] by Max Weber -- does that refer to the coining of the term or to the meaning?)

Suggestion: add lexicog:Entry to the diagram as a device for grouping terms. In terminology, the lexicog:Entry is usually (always?) defined by a (possibly implicit, but usually defined) concept. Note that no termlex-specific vocabulary is required.

Question: what would be typical attributes of a lexicographic article that unambiguously cannot apply to a concept

termlex:Concept

Observation: LexicalConcept is used for a broad band-width of phenomena, sometimes these are translation equivalent (WordNet Synset?), sometimes not (VerbNet predicates/frames???). We must provide a more concise, domain-specific definition. Also, the term "LexicalConcept" (coined to distinguish from externally defined "ontological concepts") was felt to be misleading/counterintuitive to terminologists (Rute Costa, p.c.).

Note: should always carry a definition

Suggestion: Add termlex:Concept as a designated subclass of LexicalConcept

Do we need termlex:lexicalizedConcept ?

Observation: ontolex:LexicalConcept is a subclass of skos:Concept, so, stating that a given skos:Concept

  • is* an ontolex:LexicalConcept (resp., termlex:Concept) is equivalent with termlex:lexicalizedConcept and

does not require an independently defined entity.

If such a distinct entity is required, this can also be expressed by `owl:sameAs` or `skos:exactMatch` (etc.). These do not require novel vocabulary.

Suggestion: remove termlex:lexicalizedConcept

Giorgio Maria Di Nunzio and Federica Vezzani model

Seems to be directly interpretable against OntoLex concepts.

  • Characteristic [what is that?]
    • @name
    • @variety
    • --group--> Characteristic
  • Term ~ LexicalEntry [designation is confirmed to be unique]
    • @identifier
      "e.g. URI"
    • @designation
      "characters"
      ?single designation?: confirmed
  • Concept ~ LexicalConcept
    • @identifier
    • -1-denoted-n-> Term ~ termlex:isEvokedBy ?
    • -1-intension-n-> Characteristic
    • --hierarchical--> Concept # hypo


Some representative resources

(Thanks to Pascal Vaillant, Rute Costa & TOTh participants)

Cimiano (2015) model

The following was developed in BPMLOD: https://www.w3.org/community/bpmlod/wiki/Converting_TBX_to_RDF#Mapping_the_TBX_Data_Model_to_the_ontolex-lemon_model

Probably also the basis of

Maybe also the much more recent Pret-a-LLOD implementation

Patricia's (2020) model

Not sure this is properly documented anywhere, but it's still in the history:

Retrieved from "https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Terminology&oldid=3559"