- From: Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:19:00 +0100
- To: "'Philipp Cimiano'" <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Cc: <public-ontolex@w3.org>
> rethinking the lingustic sign, actually it is "sign". We should not call it > linguistic in my view as it is something at the interface between the lexicon > and the ontology and not only at the linguistic side. > > So I propose we simply call it "a sign that represents the disambiguated > meaning of a lexical entry when interpreted as concept c. Fine. I had the same thinking, but in the end thought "linguistic sign is not that bad": from some point of view, this sign can be seen as something in the linguistic dimension connecting word senses to objects of the world. Definitely, ontology entities are sign themselves, which only after interpretation bring to real world objects, thus "linguistic" didn't sound so bad to me. However, in the overall definition: sense :- a <...> representing the disambiguated meaning of a lexical entry when interpreted sign alone is ok. > Concerning the reasoning: we will only do reasoning between senses and the > classes they denote, but not infer any relationships between the ontological > classes, but only between the senses proper. I'm not sure I would even like to infer some relationship between linguistic senses, such as inferring that a wn:Synset is a hyponym of another one, due to some relationship between classes they are attached to in a given onto-lex mapping. However, after grounding the basic ontolex vocabulary, and on the representation of Linguistic Resurces [1], we will have more clear what we would like to be inferable and what is better to leave out of inference. [1] http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Linke d_Data Cheers, Armando
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2012 11:19:32 UTC