Regular monthly LEXIDMA TC meeting

When:  Apr 20, 2020 from 14:00 to 15:00 (WET)
Description:

Find connection link within this action item

https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/lexidma/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=3932



==========
Agenda:

1. Administrative

??2. Material

3. Closing Admin

  • Recap of agreed actions
  • AOB
  • Adjourn [no later than 1400 UTC]

  

 



==========
Minutes:

1. Administrative

??2. Material

John presented "union" diagram of TEI Lex-0 and Ontolex Lemon elements. It transpired that the relationships illustrate rather the TEI Lex-0 flexibility than Ontolex prescriptiveness.

Below the diagram TEI Lex-0 based mapping into Ontolex Lemon is sketched.

dF: we need comparative representation of both diagrams, we need to be able to compare especally label and form..

Discussion of design principles:

John: Miloš's proposed design principles seem repetitive, see minimalism and simplicity under different bulllets

dF: While it makes sense that the model should not be affected by appearance, the opposite direction seems a separate issue.. 

John referenced Ontolex "design principles" or general requirements:

https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Goals_and_Scope_of_Ontology-Lexica_Community_Group#General_Requirements_on_the_Model

dF: The Ontolex design principles subscribe to a specific technology (OWL) but there are different principles

dF: IMHO we should stress blind ineroperability, not interoperabilty after a long laundry list of assumtions has been clarified but real interoperanility that allows the lexicographer not to care for the XML or RDF plumbing.. 

Ilan/John/dF: providing an interoperable mapping for both TEI Lex-0 and Ontolex Lemon is among chief objectives

  • LEXIDMA TC liaisons and appointement of reps
    • TEI Lex-0 liaison appointement pending [skipped]

3. Closing Admin

  • Recap of agreed actions
    Members to edit or propose design principles by next time
    Discussion of design principles to be continued next time
  • AOB
  • Adjourn [no later than 1400 UTC]

 

 



==========
Attendance:
Meeting Statistics
Quorum rule 51% of voting members
Achieved quorum yes
Individual Attendance Contributing Members: 6 of 12 (50%)
Voting Members: 4 of 6 (66%) (used for quorum calculation)
Company Attendance Contributing Companies: 4 of 9 (44%)
Voting Companies: 3 of 5 (60%)