LINGUIST List 23.1586|
Thu Mar 29 2012
FYI: Open Call for Use Cases for Ontology-Lexicon Model
Editor for this issue: Brent Miller
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.cfm.
From: Philipp Cimiano <cimianocit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Subject: Open Call for Use Cases for Ontology-Lexicon Model
E-mail this message to a friend
The W3C Community Group on Ontology Lexica started work in
Ontologies have numerous applications and they represent the
conceptual backbone of the Semantic Web. In fact, significant work has
gone into standardization efforts under the auspices of the W3C to
produce recommendations for data and knowledge representation
languages, i.e. the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and the
Web Ontology Language (OWL). However, current web-based
knowledge representation languages such as OWL and RDF(S) lack
the rich linguistic grounding that is required for language-mediated
access to ontologies. OWL and RDF(S) rely on a property rdfs:label to
capture the relation between a vocabulary element and its (preferred)
lexicalization in a given language. This lexicalization provides some
kind of lexical anchor that makes the concept, property, individual etc.
understandable to a user. The mechanisms for linguistic grounding
available in OWL and RDF(S) are thus far from being able to capture
the necessary linguistic and lexical information that NLP applications
working with a particular ontology need. The mission of the Ontology-
Lexicon community group is to develop a model for the linguistic
grounding of ontologies which allows to represent lexical entries
containing information about how ontology elements (classes,
properties, individuals etc.) are realized in multiple languages. A more
detailed overview of the scope and goal of the working group can be
found at .
Open Call for Use Cases
With this call for use cases, we intend to expand the scope of our
current use cases (see ) by including use cases that are inspired by
concrete, real-life applications. We thus call for participation of
industrial stakeholders and application developers in the Community
Group by providing a description of a use case using the template
found below. By this, we offer interested parties the opportunity to
participate in standardization activities that are relevant and potentially
beneficial for their application development, and contribute their ideas
to the process of creating a standard for the representation of ontology
Please send use case descriptions to Philipp Cimiano (cimianocit-
ec.uni-bielefeld.de) until May 3rd. Any questions or comments can be
addressed to Philipp Cimiano at the same email address.
Participation in the Group
People interested in the group’s activities, discussion and
teleconferences are welcome to join the group at .
This should contain a short motivation of the use case, including a
description of the application context and why it is relevant to specify
the meaning of words with respect to a given ontology in the context of
II. Description of the use case
This section should describe the use case in more detail, specifying
what the ontology-lexicon interface would need to look like from the
point of view of the application and how the ontology-lexicon interface
is exploited in the context of the given application. If available, the
ontology for the application should be briefly described.
III. Limitations of existing models
This section should discuss existing models and their limitations with
respect to the needs of the application in question.
This section should provide a concrete example illustrating what kind of
knowledge should be stated in the ontology-lexicon interface from the
point of view of the application and how it would be exploited by the
This section is optional and might already advance concrete
requirements on the ontology-lexicon model.
Linguistic Field(s): Computational Linguistics; Lexicography
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Page Updated: 29-Mar-2012
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.