Discussion - Approach for the management of quasi-equivalent concepts

8. Approach for the management of quasi-equivalent concepts

8.3 Discussion

The thesis hypothesis states that a significant part of the difficulties appears due to the often-unprincipled approach to merge concepts (from independently developed underlying conceptualizations) that are very close to each other in their meaning but not identical, which are called quasi-equivalent. As it has been defined these concepts can be replaced by each other or merged into one, but some information might be changed, added, or lost.

During analysis of the theoretical background and existing ontologies (LOV analysis), the stated hypothesis has been confirmed. The question of quasi-equivalent concepts management does bring additional complications whether to keep quasi-equivalent concepts separate or to merge them. The same conclusion has been confirmed by questionnaire results.

There is no clear and universal answer, that can be always used. There are multiple reasons and motivations behind the choice to merge “quasi-equivalent” concepts or to keep them separate. Mainly, the usage of "quasi-equivalent" relations depends on the granularity of the respective ontology and its goal. For the detailed ontology, it is valuable to define quasi-equivalent relations between concepts as otherwise important connections or descriptions might be lost. For the general ontology, quasi-equivalent relations cannot be that crucial and can be merged to keep ontology small and to make the management of data easier.

To support the decision whether to keep quasi-equivalent concepts separate or to merge them, the decision process has been introduced and tested. To analyze the information that can be changed, added, or lost in case of merging concepts and to support the decision whether this additional information is important and quasi-equivalent concepts must be kept separate the

79 ontology engineer can use a combination of additional resources to build a stronger justification for the decision.

The proposed decision process has been tested on real examples from the LOV analysis.

There are only separated concepts in the LOV analysis, that is why it is possible to find a difference that can be lost in the case of merging and define the downside of merging and separation. For each pair, the current decision to keep concepts separate has been confirmed or rejected based on the outcome of the decision process.

The test has been done based on 1 or 2 examples for each of the most common links from the 9th question of the questionnaire: owl:equivalentClass, owl:sameAs, rdfs:subClassOf, skos:exactMatch, skos:closeMatch. For the owl:sameAs link the decision was to separate two concepts and to merge one. In the case of owl:equivalentClass, the decision is to merge both concepts instead of keeping them separated. The same decision has been made in the case of skos:exactMatch. For the skos:closeMatch, the decision was to separate one example and to merge another one.

Some conditions have been mentioned during the testing of the decision process.

Dictionary, encyclopedic definitions and synonyms thesauri have been used during the analysis of additional resources as domain expert consultation has not been available. The definitions from the dictionary have been compared with the definitions, that are captured within the respective ontology. If the difference between two compared concepts is not relevant for the ontology, concepts should be merged into one.

Conclusion

In this chapter, I would like to summarize the completed work and review it from the perspective of the initial goals. The main purpose of the term paper was to provide the initial road mapping for the quasi-equivalent concepts and to make them beneficial for the ontology design. The thesis is focusing on studying and analyzing relevant topics and relevant methods to get an overview of the matching techniques that can be applied in the case of quasi-equivalent concepts.

The theoretical part includes the explanation of semantic web and linked data, identity problems and contextual identity, ontology merging and alignment, and relevant methods of knowledge acquisition. The basic literature on relevant topics, especially ontology merging and alignment, and related work on similar topics have been evaluated and explained.

The current state of the quasi-equivalence has been analyzed based on the Linked Open Vocabularies (LOV). The goal was to evaluate the existing ontologies and describe concrete cases of the quasi-equivalent concept. Already during data preparation, it was discovered that the topic of equivalence is not covered by most of the ontologies, and the quasi-equivalent concepts are just linked by owl:SameAs or owl:quasi-equivalentClass. Due to that the information that the concepts are quasi-equivalent is lost.

To gather the information from experts, who have already faced complications whether to keep two concepts separate or to merge them into one (but internally not fully coherent) concept, the questionnaire survey was provided. Based on the outcome of the feedback the challenge of quasi-equivalent concepts on how the decision can be handled is presented.

The outcome of the work is tentative guidance. That guidance, which has been presented in the thesis paper, has been extended by the clear process of decision-making. The decision-making process has been developed, to clarify the challenge of quasi-equivalent concepts on how it can be handled. Since the concept of identity and similarity is very relative, it is important to have justification, which would support the decision-making process of identifying the level of identity or similarity. The formulated guidelines for making decisions in such situations have been applied to concrete real cases of quasi-equivalent concepts from the output of LOV analysis in order to test the process.

References

1. Hovy, E., Mitamura, T., Verdejo, F., Araki, J., Philpot. A., 2013. Events are Not Simple: Identity, Non-Identity, and Quasi-Identity. In The 1st Workshop on EVENTS: Definition, Detection, Coreference and Representation, NAACL-HLT 2013 Workshop, pages 21–28, Atlanta [online]. Available at

https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W13-1203.pdf [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].

2. Décio, K., 1992. On a quasi-set theory. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic [online].

33(3), 402–411 Available at: doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1093634404 [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].

3. Antoniou, G., Harmelen, F. V., 2004. A Semantic Web primer. B.m.: Cambridge, Mass. Mit Press. ISBN 9780262012102.

4. Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P., 2013. Ontology Matching. B.m.: Berlin, Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg. ISBN 978-3-642-38720-3.

5. Tudorache, T., 2019. Ontology Engineering: Current State, Challenges, and Future Directions | www.semantic-web-journal.net. semantic-web-journal.net [online]

Available at: http://semantic-web-journal.net/content/ontology-engineering-current-state-challenges-and-future-directions-0. [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].

6. Atencia, M., David, J., Euzenat, J., 2020. On the relation between keys and link keys for data interlinking | www.semantic-web-journal.net. www.semantic-web-journal.net [online] Available at: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/relation-between-keys-and-link-keys-data-interlinking-0 [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].

7. Davis, I., Dodds, L., Linked Data Patterns. patterns.dataincubator.org [online]

Available at: http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/ [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].

8. Welty, C., Guarino, N., 2001. Supporting ontological analysis of taxonomic relationships. Data & Knowledge Engineering [online]. 39(1), 51–74 Available at:

doi:10.1016/s0169-023x(01)00030-1 [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].

9. Smith, M. K., Welty, C., McGuinness, D. OWL Web Ontology Language Guide, February 2004. W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004, [online]. Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/. [Accessed 12 Jan. 2021].

10. Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P. F., Parsia, B., OWL2 Web Ontology Language:

Structural specification and functional-style syntax, 2009. W3C Recommendation 27 October 2009, [online]. Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/. [Accessed 12 Jan. 2021].

11. RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax. W3.org [online] Available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/ [Accessed 12 Jan. 2021].

12. Gómez-Pérez, A., Fernández-López, M., Corcho, O., 2004. Ontological engineering : with examples from the areas of knowledge management, e-commerce and the Semantic Web. London ; New York: Springer. ISBN 9781852335519.

13. Green, R., Vocabulary Alignment via Basic Level Concepts. OCLC/ALISE research grant report published electronically by OCLC Research. 2006. Available at:

82 http://www.oclc.org/research/grants/reports/green/rg2005.pdf. [Accessed 16 Jan.

2021].

14. Guarino, N., 1999. The Role of Identity Conditions in Ontology Design 1 [online].

Available at: https://www.aaai.org/Papers/Workshops/1999/WS-99-13/WS99-13-005.pdf [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].

15. Recasens, M., Hovy, E.H., Martí, M.A. 2011. Identity, Non-identity, and Near-identity: Addressing the Complexity of Coreference. Lingua. Available at:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~hovy/papers/11Lingua-near-identity-coref.pdf [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].

16. Duzi, M. 2015. Semantic Web Ontology and Natural Language from the Logical Point of View. Technical university of Ostrava. [online]. Available at:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marie_Duzi/publication/267234598_Semantic_

Web_Ontology_and_Natural_Language_from_the_Logical_Point_of_View/links/547 d87f70cf2cfe203c218ef/Semantic-Web-Ontology-and-Natural-Language-from-the-Logical-Point-of-View.pdf [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].

17. Kneale, W., Geach, P.T. 1965. Reference and Generality: An Examination of Some Medieval and Modern Theories. The Philosophical Quarterly [online]. 15(60), 259.

Available at: doi:10.2307/2217604

18. Daga, E., Gangemi, A., Motta, E., 2018. Reasoning with data flows and policy propagation rules. Semantic Web [online]. 9(2), 163–183 Available

at: doi:10.3233/sw-170266 [Accessed 05 Mar. 2021].

19. Raad, J., Pernelle, N., Saïs, F., Beek, W., Harmelen, F.V. 2020. Semantic Web 0 (0) 1 IOS Press [online]. Available at:

http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/system/files/swj2430.pdf [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].

20. Ackrill, J. L. "Plato and the Copula: Sophist 251F-259." The Journal of Hellenic Studies 77 (1957): 1-6.. doi:10.2307/628625.

21. Barnes, K. T., 1977. Aristotle on identity and its problems. Phronesis [online]. 22(1), 48–62 Available at: doi:10.1163/156852877x00173 [Accessed 07 Dec. 2020].

22. Rodriguez-Pereyra, G., 2014. Leibniz’s Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles [online]. B.m.: OUP Oxford Available

at: https://books.google.cz/books?id=PrETBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&ots=fmCBXFFK Fi&dq=identity%20leibniz&lr&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q=identity%20leibniz&f=fals e [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].

23. Kant, I. Critique of Pure Reason. The Cambridge edition of the works of Immanuel Kant [online]. Available at: https://philocyclevl.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/kant-critique-of-pure-reason-cambridge.pdf [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].

24. Krause, D., Coelho, A.M.N. Identity, Indiscernibility, and Philosophical Claims. Axiomathes 15, 191–210 (2005). [online]. Available at:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-004-6678-5 [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].

83 25. Algergawy, A., Faria, D., Ferrara, A., Fundulaki, I., Harrow, I., Hertling, S.,

Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Karam, N., Khiat, A., Lambrix, P., Li, H., Montanelli, S., Paulheim, H., Pesquita, C., Saveta, T., Shvaiko, P., Splendiani, A., Thiéblin, E., Trojahn, C., Vataščinová, J., Ondřej Zamazal, O., Zhou, L., 2019. Results of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2019- cense Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) [online]. Available at:

http://www.dit.unitn.it/~pavel/om2019/papers/oaei19_paper0.pdf [Accessed 16 Jan.

2021].

26. Raad, J., Pernelle, N., Saïs, F., Detection of Contextual Identity Links in a Knowledge Base. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Knowledge Capture, Dec 2017, Austin, United States. ffhal-01665062f [online]. Available at:

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01665062/document [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].

27. Skos_metamodel.Wikimedia.org [online] Available at:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Skos_metamodel.png [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].

28. Identity Links. www.lexvo.org [online] Available

at: http://www.lexvo.org/linkeddata/identity.html [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].

29. Müllerová Shiflett, M., Functional Equivalence and Its Role In Legal Translation [online] Available at:

https://www.pulib.sk/web/kniznica/elpub/dokument/Kacmarova3/subor/mullerova.pdf [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].

30. SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference. www.w3.org [online]

Available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L4564 [Accessed 16 Jan.

2021].

31. Halpin, H., Herman, I., Hayes, P., When owl:sameAs isn’t the Same: An Analysis of Identity Links on the Semantic Web [online]. Available at:

https://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws21 [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].

32. RDF Schema 1.1. W3.org [online]. Available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/

[Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].

33. Property: P2888. www.wikidata.org [online] Available at:

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P2888 [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].

34. Open.vocab.org. vocab.org [online] Available at: https://vocab.org/open/ [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].

35. sameAs - Schema.org Property. Schema.org [online] Available at: https://schema.org/sameAs [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].

36. W3.org. (2012). OWL - Semantic Web Standards. [online] Available at:

https://www.w3.org/OWL/. [Accessed 6 Oct. 2021].

37. W3.org. (2014). RDF - Semantic Web Standards. [online] Available at:

https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/RDF. [Accessed 6 Oct. 2021].

84 38. Linkeddata.es. (2014). [online] Available at:

https://lov.linkeddata.es/dataset/lov/sparql [Accessed 17 Oct. 2021].

39. Linked Open Vocabularies (LOV). [online] Available at:

https://lov.linkeddata.es/dataset/lov [Accessed 17 Oct. 2021].

40. Linked Open Vocabularies (LOV). [online] Available at:

https://lov.linkeddata.es/dataset/lov/about. [Accessed 17 Oct. 2021].

41. Oxford Languages (2021). Oxford Languages and Google - English. [online]

languages.oup.com. Available at: https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/.

[Accessed 17 Oct. 2021].

42. Handbook of Faculty Titles. [online] Available at:

http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/titles/titlebook.htm#Glossary%20of%20Titles [Accessed 17 Oct. 2021].

43. Khan, A. and Boschetti, F. (n.d.). Lexicography in gLobaL contexts. [online]

Available at:

http://euralex.org/wp- content/themes/euralex/proceedings/Euralex%202018/118-4-2913-1-10-20180820.pdf [Accessed 17 Oct. 2021].

44. TEI: Text Encoding Initiative. [online] Available at: http://www.tei-c.org/index.xml [Accessed 17 Oct. 2021].

45. Boeuf, P. L. (2012, 06). A Strange Model Named FRBROO. Cataloging &

Classification Quarterly, 50(5-7), 422- 438. doi:10.1080/01639374.2012.679222 46. Floridi, L., (ed.), Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information.

Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 155-166 (2003) [online] Available at:

https://philpapers.org/archive/SMIO-11. [Accessed 17 Oct. 2021].

47. Borst, W., Construction of Engineering Ontologies. PhD thesis, University of Tweenty, Enschede, The Netherlands, 1997. [online] Available at:

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Construction-of-Engineering-Ontologies-for-Sharing-Borst/205e142ca3eb360be04988c80cbe3819523868f1 [Accessed 17 Oct.

2021].

48. The Semantic Web - slide “Enabling Standards & Technologies - Layer

Cake.” [online] Available at: https://www.w3.org/2002/Talks/04-sweb/slide12-0.html [Accessed 17 Oct. 2021].

49. Allemang, D., and Hendler, J., Semantic Web for the Working Ontologist: Effective Modeling in RDFS and OWL. Morgan Kaufmann, 2008 Semantic Web for the Working Ontologist. (n.d.). [online] Available at:

http://www.kevenlw.name/downloads/Ontologist.pdf [Accessed 17 Oct. 2021].

50. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Primer (Second Edition). [online] Available at:

https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-primer-20121211/. [Accessed 17 Oct.

2021].

85 51. W3.org. (2014). RDF Schema 1.1. [online] Available at:

https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/ [Accessed 17 Oct. 2021].

52. W3.org. (2013). SPARQL 1.1 Query Language. [online] Available at:

https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/. [Accessed 17 Oct. 2021].

53. Berners-Lee, T., 1996. Universal resource identifiers: Axioms of web architecture [online] Available at: http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html [Accessed 1 Jan.

2021].

54. Heath, T., Bizer, C., 2011. Linked data: Evolving the web into a global data space, Morgan & Claypool. Synthesis lectures on the semantic web: Theory and technology.

ISBN978-1-60845-431-0. [online] Available at:

doi:10.2200/S00334ED1V01Y201102WBE001 [Accessed 17 Oct. 2021].

55. W3.org. (2009). Universal Resource identifiers in WWW. [online] Available at:

https://www.w3.org/Addressing/URL/uri-spec.html. [Accessed 17 Oct. 2021].

56. W3.org. (2021). [online] Available at: https://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/draft-duerst-iri-05.txt [Accessed 17 Oct. 2021].

57. W3.org. (2009). Linked Data - Design Issues. [online] Available at:

https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html. [Accessed 17 Oct. 2021].

58. W3.org. (2009). Benefits - Library Linked Data. [online] Available at:

https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Benefits [Accessed 17 Oct. 2021].

59. Denaux, R., Dolbear, C., Hart, G., Dimitrova, V. and Cohn, A.G. (2011). Supporting Domain Experts to Construct Conceptual Ontologies: A Holistic Approach. [online]

papers.ssrn.com. Available at:

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=87412111507306500301412011810708 702908504306400303103002500404110202800108604210610811808000502402508 404008502606402311507011607010800909608501400701012407209610908511211 6070123008021082&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE [Accessed 28 Oct. 2021].

60. www.ebi.ac.uk. (n.d.). Fanconi anemia. [online] Available at:

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols/ontologies/mondo/terms?iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/

MONDO_0019391 [Accessed 31 Oct. 2021].

61. Mungall, C.J., Koehler, S., Robinson, P., Holmes, I., Haendel, M., (2019) k-BOOM:

A Bayesian approach to ontology structure inference, with applications in disease ontology construction [online] bioRxiv 048843 Available at:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/048843v3.full.pdf [Accessed 31 Oct. 2021].

62. GitHub. (2021). boomer: Bayesian OWL ontology merging. [online] Available at:

https://github.com/INCATools/boomer [Accessed 31 Oct. 2021].

63. Guarino, N. and Welty, C. (n.d.). An Overview of OntoClean. [online]

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu. Available at:

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.99.7618&rep=rep1&type=

pdf [Accessed 1 Nov. 2021].

86 64. Oxford English Dictionary (2021). Oxford English Dictionary. [online] Oed.com.

Available at: https://www.oed.com/. [Accessed 1 Nov. 2021].

65. Cambridge University Press (2021). Cambridge Dictionary | English Dictionary, Translations & Thesaurus. [online] Cambridge.org. Available at:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/. [Accessed 1 Nov. 2021].

66. dbpedia.org. (n.d.). About: Professor. [online] Available at:

https://dbpedia.org/page/Professor [Accessed 4 Dec. 2021].

89 https://w3id.org/timebank#SickCare http://dbpedia.org/resource/Nursing https://w3id.org/timebank#Repair http://dbpedia.org/resource/Maintenance seeAlso

http://purl.org/cwmo/#Idea http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Conc ept

http://ogp.me/ns#email http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/mbox

http://open-multinet.info/ontology/omn#Environment

http://schema.org/Place

http://purl.org/spar/fabio/StructuredSummary http://purl.org/spar/fabio/Abstract services.net/ns/core#ResourceShape

http://open-services.net/ns/core#instanceShape http://rdfs.org/sioc/types#Microblog http://rdfs.org/sioc/types#MicroblogPost http://rdfs.org/sioc/types#Weblog http://rdfs.org/sioc/types#BlogPost

http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/ontologies/consumerelectronics/v1#I nFocus

http://www.infocus.com

http://purl.org/dita/ns#LearningContent

http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.2/os/spec/langref/learningC ontent.html

"Professor (commonly abbreviated as Prof.) is an academic rank at universities and other post-secondary education and research institutions in most countries. Literally, professor derives from Latin as a "person who professes". Professors are usually experts in their field and teachers of the highest rank."@en

http://dbpedia.org/property/name "Professor"@en

http://dbpedia.org/property/caption "Albert Einstein as a professor"@en http://dbpedia.org/property/formation

"professor" refers only to the most senior

academic position, sometimes informally known as "full professor." In some countries and

institutions, the word "professor" is also used in titles of lower ranks such as associate professor and assistant professor; this is particularly the case in the United States. This colloquial usage would be considered incorrect among other academic communities. However, the unqualified title

"Professor" designated with a capital letter nearly always refers to a full professor. Professors often conduct original research and commonly teach undergraduate, professional, or postgraduate courses in their fields of expertise. In universities with graduate schools, professors may mentor and supervise graduate students conducting research for a thesis or dissertation. In many universities,

91 full professors take on senior managerial roles such as leading departments, research teams and institutes, and filling roles such as president, principal or vice-chancellor. The role of professor may be more public-facing than that of more junior staff, and professors are expected to be national or international leaders in their field of expertise."@en pedagoga, tedy vyšší než docent. Slovo pochází původně z latinského profiteri, což přibližně znamená veřejně vyznávat. Dle úzu se zpravidla užívá obecná zkratka prof. umístěná před jménem jako titul, obdobně jako se zkracuje např. doc., přičemž se zkratka doporučuje psát, pokud jí nezačíná větný celek, s malým počátečním písmenem. Ve světě této hodnosti zhruba

odpovídá pozice professor, která však na rozdíl od Česka nemívá charakter doživotního „označení,“

ale zpravidla je spjata s příslušným funkčním místem."@cs

http://dbpedia.org/ontology/abstract

"Profesor je nejvyšší vědecko-pedagogická (nebo umělecko-pedagogická) hodnost vysokoškolského pedagoga, tedy vyšší než docent. Slovo pochází původně z latinského profiteri, což přibližně znamená veřejně vyznávat. Dle úzu se zpravidla užívá obecná zkratka prof. umístěná před jménem jako titul, obdobně jako se zkracuje např. doc., přičemž se zkratka doporučuje psát, pokud jí nezačíná větný celek, s malým počátečním písmenem. Ve světě této hodnosti zhruba

odpovídá pozice professor, která však na rozdíl od Česka nemívá charakter doživotního „označení,“

ale zpravidla je spjata s příslušným funkčním místem. „Profesor“ se také někdy používá jako tradiční označení učitele na českých gymnáziích, příp. jiných středních školách. V minulosti bylo rovněž používáno spojení „středoškolský profesor“ a „univerzitní profesor“ jakožto označení regulovaného povolání. Jako kupř.

(angl.) Research Professor jsou ekvivalentně

92 označováni doktoři věd, což jsou primárně jen vědečtí, nikoliv i pedagogičtí pracovníci."@cs

93 Appendix C. Questionnaire 'Quasi-equivalent concepts'

Timestamp 2021/05/21 10:08:33 AM GMT+2 2021/05/21 11:40:28 AM GMT+2 10/23/2021 12:51:04 AM 1. How would you

classify the broader domain of the

concerned ontology? Linguistics / lexicography Linguistics / lexicography

Biomedical / life sciences

The first concept was new when developing the Ontolex lexicog module, while the second concept already existed in an ontology (Ontolex core module)

Yes, in my case I was trying to decide whether to re-use an already existing concept (the Citation) class or create my own (Attestation)

(1) yes (2) no they were connected by loose non-semantic mappings

4.1 For Separation:

There were stakeholders behind each of the two concepts who preferred (or might have preferred) to see it as separate

Analysis of the concept revealed that they pertained to different levels of description (As described in the paper

http://euralex.org/wp-94 proposed a clear "rule of thumb"

when representing a dictionary as linked data, which is: only use Ontolex lemon (including the expand it with the lexicog module (including the

http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/lexico g#Entry entity) only if keeping the

In document Hlavní práce75522_qnesa01.pdf, 1.1 MB Stáhnout (Stránka 78-96)