Matches in LOV for { ?s <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment> ?o. }
- PlasticArt comment "wn noun: The arts of shaping or modeling; carving and sculpture".
- Sculpture comment "wn noun: A three-dimensional work of plastic art".
- Sentence comment "A composition of Phrase(s), assumed to express a state of affairs (here modelled as a dul:Situation). Graphically, a period is usually considered its boundary.".
- Sound comment "An information realization consisting of sound waves.".
- Term comment "A word or multiword that is established in some terminology from a domain of discourse.".
- Text comment "A LinguisticObject composed of at least one Sentence, and assumed to be realized in written form.".
- Voicing comment "An information realization consisting of uttered sounds. In natural agents, it always co-occurs with bodily movements.".
- Word comment "A linguistic object consisting of a string (independently of its physical realization).\nIts topological unity can change according to its physical realization: as a written realization, its boundaries are blank spaces, as a spoken realization, sometimes is silence, sometimes not, and higher order features intervene.\nGrammatical notions, such as noun, verb, adjective, etc., are roles defined by a grammar, and words (or larger linguistic objects) can play those roles in a given language. E.g., the word 'share' can play both 'verb' and 'noun' roles in contemporary English, while the word 'come' can only play the 'verb' role in English, and the 'adverb' or 'conjunction' roles in Italian (but if we consider a word as only realized by phonemes, i.e. if we consider the oral realizations of 'come', there is no common word 'come' in the two languages).".
- Writing comment "An information realization based on conventional symbols.\nIt is a secondary code of communication (secondary means that it is about an original bodily expression, i.e. a primary code). Therefore, we are not considering here early forms of iconic expression, which could be considered primary.".
- combinatoriallyRelatedTo comment "Any relation holding between two FormalExpression(s), e.g. a function over formal grammars, boolean operators, syntactic relations defined for the logical vocabulary of a formal language, etc.\nSyntactic relations from logical languages have a correspondance to some formal relation.".
- encodes comment "Any relation between two information entities, with the first used as an alternative encoding of the second. This encoding can preserve all or part of the informational structure. For example, an XML encoding of a plain text file, a digital scanning of a physical paper document, a reproduction of a painting, etc.\nThe encoding can be so precise and close to the medium of realization, that distinguishing the maximally encoded object from its realization is superfluous (as in many cases of computer science information entities). For this reason, the relation holds for either dul:InformationObject(s) or dul:InformationRealization(s).\nSince the relation holds for either dul:InformationObject(s) or dul:InformationRealization(s), dul:realizes is a subproperty of it.".
- formallyRepresents comment "The relation between formal expressions, and anything that they are supposed to represent.\nE.g., 'the predicate 'MariachiInTijuana' formallyRepresents the dul:Collection of all mariachis in Tijuana'; 'the equivalence relation '<=>' formallyRepresents the Concept of two entities having the same properties', 'the constant 'John' formallyRepresents the dul:NaturalPerson 'John'.\nNotice that a FormalExpression isAssignmentOf (is formally interpreted by) instances of dul:FormalEntity.\n\nformallyRepresents is a particular case of 'dul:isAbout', holding only for formal expressions. \nAnyway, a formal expression that dul:expresses a dul:SocialObject is also possible, but treats formal expressions as any other kind of dul:InformationObject that express a 'social' or 'cognitive' semantics, not a formal one.".
- hasSchema comment "A relation between social objects and schemata that organize them. For example, a Tag hasSchema a Folksonomy, a Lexeme hasSchema a Lexicon, etc.".
- isAssignedTo comment "The relation between a FormalExpression, and an Entity (a FormalEntity in case of classes, relations, etc.) that it is supposed to be the reference of the symbol (FormalExpression) that the Entity is an intepretation of. \nIn other words, this is the 'formal interpretation' function, by which a logician 'assigns' an Entity to a FormalExpression.\nFor each type of formal expressions defined in a logical language, an assignment assumption should be indicated, for example, owl:Class should be restricted to: isAssignmentOf allValuesFrom Class. In addition, differently from the general relation formallyRepresents, isAssignmentOf is functional (and its inverse is inverse functional), in order to encode the Tarskian correspondence assumption.\nE.g., the Set of 'all mariachis in Tijuana' isAssignedTo the predicate (FormalExpression) 'TijuanaMariachi' (that isFormalTermFor a Term e.g. 'the mariachis in Tijuana').".
- isCopyOf comment "The original information realization of some copy. Differently from reproductions, copies are not planned to have notable differences from the original. Master copies, author-signed paintings, etc. are examples of originals.".
- isEncodedBy comment "Any relation between two information entities, with the first used as an alternative encoding of the second. This encoding can preserve all or part of the informational structure. For example, an XML encoding of a plain text file, a digital scanning of a physical paper document, a reproduction of a painting, etc.\nThe encoding can be so precise and close to the medium of realization, that distinguishing the maximally encoded object from its realization is superfluous (as in many cases of computer science information entities). For this reason, the relation holds for either dul:InformationObject(s) or dul:InformationRealization(s).\nSince the relation holds for either dul:InformationObject(s) or dul:InformationRealization(s), dul:realizes is a subproperty of it.".
- isFormalTermFor comment "The relation between an InformationObject and a FormalExpression (constant, formula, term, sentence, proposition, axiom, etc.) that it is supposed to be given formal interpretation to formalize the InformationObject.\nNotice that FormalExpression(s) only are formal terms for InformationObject(s), not for Concept(s) or for other SocialObject(s). On their turn, information object can 'express' (see) SocialObject(s).\nE.g., the predicate (FormalExpression) 'TijuanaMariachi' isFormalTermFor the Term 'the mariachis in Tijuana' (that expresses the Collection of all mariachis in Tijuana); the Term 'equivalence relation' (that expresses the Concept of 'two entities having the same properties') hasFormalTerm the '<=>' symbol.".
- isFormallyRepresentedIn comment "The relation between formal expressions, and anything that they are supposed to represent.\nE.g., 'the predicate 'MariachiInTijuana' formallyRepresents the dul:Collection of all mariachis in Tijuana'; 'the equivalence relation '<=>' formallyRepresents the concept of two entities having the same properties', 'the constant 'John' formallyRepresents the dul:NaturalPerson John.\nNotice that formal expressions are formally interpreted by instances of dul:FormalEntity".
- isGroundingFor comment "A relation between a dul:Entity and a dul:FormalEntity, which can be used to give a semiotic ('natural') counterpart to a formal entity, such as a Class, a Relation, a SetBuilder, etc. See also the ontology: FormalSemantics.owl".
- isLexicalizedBy comment "A relation between linguistic objects and other information objects (including other linguistic objects).\nFor example, 'dog' can lexicalize a picture of a dog, a linguistic description of a dog, or the logical class: 'Dog'.\nThis relation is a subPropertyOf encodes .\nIn case of FormalExpression(s), it is not the inverse of isFormalTermFor: formal expressions can be said to 'be formal terms' for a LinguisticObject(s), while, independently, linguistic objects can be said to 'lexicalize' formal expressions. The difference is mainly pragmatic: one can take e.g. the word Dog, and decide to have a logical class 'Dog' for it. Someone else can see the logical class 'Dog', and decide to lexicalize it with the words dog, chien, cane, etc. While the relation seems similar, the pragmatic of using them is very different.".
- isSchemaOf comment "A relation between social objects and schemata that organize them. For example, a Tag hasSchema a Folksonomy, a Lexeme hasSchema a Lexicon, etc.".
- lexicalizes comment "A relation between linguistic objects and other information objects (including other linguistic objects).\nFor example, 'dog' can lexicalize a picture of a dog, a linguistic description of a dog, or the logical class: 'Dog'.\nThis relation is a subPropertyOf encodes .\nIn case of FormalExpression(s), it is not the inverse of isFormalTermFor: formal expressions can be said to 'be formal terms' for a LinguisticObject(s), while, independently, linguistic objects can be said to 'lexicalize' formal expressions. The difference is mainly pragmatic: one can take e.g. the word Dog, and decide to have a logical class 'Dog' for it. Someone else can see the logical class 'Dog', and decide to lexicalize it with the words dog, chien, cane, etc. While the relation seems similar, the pragmatic of using them is very different.".
- metaphoricallyBlendsWith comment "This property can be used to relate two social objects that are associated by means of a metaphorical blending, e.g. Greek and Aegyptian sphinges.".
- ontopic.owl comment "An ontology of topics as used in thesauri, subject directories, etc.\nTopic is classified as a subclass of Collection, since its extensional semantics can be intended as a set of social objects (e.g. texts, concepts, other collections, relational meanings, etc.). Its intensional semantics is intended as an area of knowledge (or culture).\n\nThe ontology is partly based on Chris Welty's formal ontology of subjects (DKE, 1999). Subtopic, near, and far relations are pretty similar to the ones defined there. The main differences are:\n- topics are intended here as collections of social objects, not as regions; there is anyway a morphism to the mereo-topological notion of Welty's, since for each topic as a collection we can define a topic space (a subclass of dul:Region) that corresponds to Welty's topics;\n- subjects in Welty's ontology, which are points in a topic region, are intended here in two ways:\n(1) as a dul:SocialObject that hasTopic a Topic. A dul:SocialObject in this case contains references to any entity that (in Welty's terms) 'is about' a topic\n(2) as a Subject, which is characterized here as a subclass of Topic, which isTopicOf exactly 1 dul:SocialObject\n\nFor example, in Welty's theory, given a football event, there can be a subject for that event that is a point in the space of a topic, e.g. 'football'. In this ontology, this is represented as a dul:Event (the actual football event) that dul:isReferenceOf some dul:InformationObject (e.g. a report or article about the football event); such information object hasTopic a Topic (e.g. football). \nTherefore, this solution has specific counterparts to Welty's theory, although the intuition is very different: Welty's topics correspond here to Topic(s), Welty's subjects correspond here to parts of Topic(s), and Welty's individual entities in a domain ontology correspond here to any Entity that dul:isReferenceOf a dul:InformationObject that dul:expresses a dul:SocialObject that hasTopic a Topic.\n\nOn the other hand, a geometrical conception of topics, for example the one assumed by LSA (Latent Semantic Analysis), might take advantage from the addition of topic spaces into the ontology, because one could use dimensional space operators, as well as take input and produce outputs into an ontology by reasoning over topic spaces.\nFor this reason, in this version of the ontopic ontology, we also provide the classes TopicSpace and SubjectSpace, and link them to Topic(s) through the relation dul:isRegionFor; the advantage is that we have a dual encoding of topics, which get either a commonsensical semantics as collections of documents, notions, or any other dul:SocialObject, or a mereotopological semantics as dul:Region(s). The second semantics can be used jointly with LSA geometrical semantics.".
- ontopic.owl comment "TODO: remove LMM imports from within the ontology.".
- SubjectDirectory comment "A collection of tags or metadata that have no formal semantics, and are typically used sparsely to annotate texts, images, bookmarks, etc.".
- SubjectSpace comment "Any atomic Region in a TopicSpace that is used to localize a dul:SocialObject that hasTopic a Topic that dul:hasRegion that TopicSpace.\nIn Welty's formal ontology of subjects, it is assumed as a point. The reason why we do not assume subjects as points is the relativity of atomicity: although the intuition goes to atomicity, one cannot exclude that subjects can have other subjects as parts; for example, consider the subject of an article on a football match: we might conceive a subject of a paragraph within that article that is about a penalty occurred during the football match.".
- Topic comment "A topic, or subject, argument, domain, theme, subject area, etc.\nTopics have a controversial intuition across common sense, document management systems, knowledge organization systems, etc.\nHere we conceptualise a semiotic notion of iol:Topic as 'a (usually potential) dul:Collection of dul:SocialObject(s). \nFor example, 'music' is a topic constituted by the set of social objects that are associated with music-related entities. Such social objects can be information objects (texts, documents, words, images) about music-related entities, concepts classifying music-related entities, descriptions of musical theories and systems, etc.\nThe relation between social objects and topics is called here 'hasTopic', and is a rdfs:subPropertyOf dul:isMemberOf\nSpecific topics for e.g. a conversation or an article (therefore, closer to the notion of 'title' or 'entry') are called Subject(s).\n\nThere is an interesting duality of topics: they are commonly interpreted as areas of shared knowledge within a Community (therefore as collections of social objects). On the other hand, existing directories and thesauri use 'topic' (or 'subject') more restrictively, as a relation between a document and a concept. \nThere is a sense of 'meaning' that can be reduced to the one given here to Topic (cf. the comment at the property dul:expresses), but in general there seems to be enough room to distinguish carefully between concepts and topics. \nFor example, thesauri do not usually distinguish when their 'concepts' (cf. skos:Concept) are actually intended as concepts (in the sense of dul:Concept) and when they are intended as topics. The distinction is clear when you compare these two sample sentences: 'the football topic is part of the sport topic' vs. 'the concept of football is part of the concept of sport'. \nWhile the first is perfectly acceptable, the second is counterintuitive and even possibly wrong. This effect is due to the fact that concepts are 'intensional' notions and are not intended as areas of knowledge, document spaces, etc., which are 'extensional' notions.\nAccordingly to these basic observations, in this ontology dul:Concept and Topic result to be disjoint, and an appropriate representation should be in place in order to model thesauri. E.g. skos:Concept should be mapped to the union of dul:Concept and Topic.".
- TopicAssignment comment "A topic assignment is a iol:LinguisticAct in which an dul:Agent assigns a Topic to a document, or in general to any dul:SocialObject.\nWhat is the semiotic act involved in such an assignment? Differently from tagging, which 'selects' one of the references of a document, a topic actually points to an 'area of knowledge', which can be represented as a dul:Collection of dul:SocialObject(s) (e.g. of documents, concepts, meanings, etc.). \nA Topic is necessarily expressed by a iol:LinguisticObject.\nTopics have a typical topology, by which they can be distant, close, overlapping, etc., and a mereology, by which they can be part of others. This also means that 'areas of knowledge' can be part of others, can overlap, etc., so originating clusters of areas and terms that denote them.\nThe subcollection of terms populating a Topic is called here TopicSignature".
- TopicSignature comment "The collection of lmm1:Expression(s) that are in a Topic; for example, the topic signatures from sensecorpus, the entries from Roget's, etc.".
- TopicSpace comment "Any Region in a dimensional space that is used to localize a Topic. Its atomic parts are called Subject(s). Mereotopological relations: dul:hasPart, dul:overlaps, can be simply reused within and between TopicSpace(s).\nThis class is mostly similar to the Topic class in Welty's formal ontology of subjects.".
- farTopicFrom comment "The opposite to vicinity relation between two topics, e.g. 'star system' (as a Topic) is farTopicFrom 'geology' (as a Topic).\nDistance is typically established with reference to a threshold on the number of dul:SocialObject(s) that are common to the two topics. Alternatively, it can be established with reference to the a geometrical semantics applied to the TopicSpace(s) that are regions for the Topic(s)".
- hasSubTopic comment "The relation between two instances of a Topic, in terms of their cultural coverage. For example, Sport hasSubTopic Football. \nIt can be used widely to talk about document annotations, subject directories, etc.\nThe counterpart of this relation for TopicSpace(s) is simply dul:hasPart".
- hasTopic comment "The relation between ay Entity - but usually any dul:SocialObject (usually a document) - and a Topic (subject, argument, domain, theme, subject area, etc.). It can be used widely to talk about document annotations, subject directories, etc.\nThe range is here relaxed to any SocialObject, in order to allow alignment of deviant uses of topic or subject relations for 'concepts' (e.g. in thesauri), and other things that are mixed up with the notion of Topic.\nThis move makes the hasTopic relation very general, and introduces a particular semiotic relation, different from dul:expresses, lmm1:denotes, and lmm1:isInterpretationOf: this is a relation between any two social objects, in which the first is (or is related to) some lmm1:Meaning that dul:isMemberOf a dul:Collection (a Topic). The second social object can even be another member of that Topic. Hence, in the general case, we could expect a relation between two social objects that are associated because they are members of a common Topic.\nFor example, consider the following cases:\n(1) A biography of Brigitte Bardot (dul:InformationObject) ontopic:hasTopic 'star system' (Topic)\n(2) The concept of 'starlet' (dul:Concept) hasTopic 'cinema' (Topic)\n(3) A biography of Claude Chabrol (dul:InformationObject) ontopic:hasTopic 'Nouvelle Vague' (Topic)".
- includesTopic comment "A relation between topic assignments and topics.".
- isCoreConceptFor comment "A Concept is a core concept for a Topic when it classifies a set of entities that are references of some relevant information objects that have that Topic.\nFor example, Saxophone (as a Concept) isCoreConceptFor Saxophones (as a Topic).".
- isSubTopicOf comment "The relation between two Topic(s), in terms of their cultural coverage. For example, Football isSubTopicOf Sport. \nIt can be used widely to talk about document annotations, subject directories, etc.\nThe counterpart of this relation for TopicSpace(s) is simply dul:isPartOf".
- isTopicOf comment "The relation between any Entity, and a Topic (subject, argument, domain, theme, subject area, etc.). It can be used widely to talk about document annotations, subject directories, etc.\nThe range is here relaxed to any SocialObject, in order to allow alignment of deviant uses of topic or subject relations for 'concepts' (e.g. in thesauri), and other things that are mixed up with the notion of Topic.".
- nearTopicTo comment "The vicinity relation between two topics, e.g. 'star system' (as a Topic) is nearTopicTo 'cinema' (as a Topic).\nVicinity is typically established with reference to a threshold on the number of dul:SocialObject(s) that are common to the two Topic(s), or based on a geometrical semantics applied to the TopicSpace(s) that are regions for the two Topic(s).".
- LMM_L1.owl comment "This ontology is a composition of some content design patterns for the semiotic triangle.\nIts structure is extracted from DOLCE-Ultralite (DOLCE+c.DnS), but it uses a different terminology, and explicitly defines the semiotic function: Expression is the semiotic term for dul:InformationObject, when they actually express or denote something; Meaning is the semiotic term for dul:SocialObject, when they are actually expressed by something, or are interpretation of something; Reference is the semiotic term for dul:Entity, when they are interpreted or denoted by something.\nThe denotes relation is equivalent to dul:isAbout, the expresses relation is imported from DOLCE Ultralite, and the hasInterpretation relation generalizes over: dul:isClassifiedBy, dul:isCoveredBy, dul:isDescribedBy, dul:isUnifiedBy, and dul:satisfies\n\nExtensions to the triangle:\nA typical extension of the semiotic triangle concerns the participation of agents: this is introduced by using the dul:conceptualizes relation, holding between a dul:Agent and a dul:SocialObject (the Meaning). \nAn additional extension concerns semiotic context: this is provided by including four notions of 'Context': 'Paradigm' (the context of the conceptualized meaning), 'KnowledgeCollective' (the context of agents that conceptualize the paradigm), 'Cotext' (the context of expressions), and dul:Situation (the context of denoted entities).\nA final extension links semiotics to formal semantics: this is provided by reusing dul:FormalEntity, iol:isGroundingFor, iol:FormalExpression, iol:isAssignedTo, iol:FormalLanguage, etc.\n\nThe complete pattern allows to declare relations between Expression(s) and their Reference(s) (denotes), between Expression(s) and their Meaning (dul:expresses), between Meaning(s) and Reference(s) (isInterpretationOf), between Reference(s) and dul:FormalEntity(ies) (iol:isGroundingFor), between dul:FormalEntity(ies) and iol:FormalExpression(s) (iol:isAssignedTo).\n\nThis 'formalization pathway' moves from Expression(s) to iol:FormalExpression(s) by taking into account both Meaning(s) and Referent(s). The informal denotation of Expression(s) is moved to a formal denotation (iol:isAssignedTo) of iol:FormalExpression(s).\nFor example: the Expression 'Mariachi' dul:expresses the dul:Concept (Meaning) 'MexicanStreetSinger' that isInterpretationOf the dul:Collection (Reference) 'TheStreetSingersFromMexico'. 'TheStreetSingersFromMexico' then iol:isGroundingFor e.g. the dul:Set (dul:FormalEntity) that includes all Mexican street singers, which iol:isAssignedTo e.g. the iol:FormalExpression 'owl:Class#Mariachi'.\n\nThe formalization pathway enables a technique to move from/to socio-cognitive and formal semantics through denotation, in the Tarskian sense. As a matter of fact, translating directly a Meaning into a FormalEntity (or viceversa) is not always clearly implementable, while passing through an extensional grounding is easier and more accessible to intuition.\n\nAmong possible uses, information extraction, ontology learning, KOS reengineering, lexical semantics, etc. For example, statistical learning of instances for a dul:Concept would be modelled as the building of a dul:Collection that isInterpretationOf the dul:Concept, but also dul:isGroundingFor a dul:Set that iol:isAssignedTo e.g. an owl:Class.\n\nAn additional semiotic pattern is based on the hasInterpretant relation, which allows to link two Expression(s) (or dul:InformationRealization(s)), when the second one counts as a Meaning (or a relatedMeaning) of the first. \nIn practice, this is implemented by allowing a relation between an Expression (or its realization), and whatever Meaning (or another dul:InformationRealization). Technically speaking, the correct path would be passing through another Expression used to express a Meaning for the first one:\n\n(Exp1 hasInterpretant some (Exp2 and expresses some (Meaning and isExpressedBy some Exp1)))\n\nor even:\n\n(Exp1 hasInterpretant some (Exp2 and expresses some (Meaning and relatedMeaning some (Meaning and isExpressedBy some Exp1))))\n\nbut given the expressive power of OWL, which lacks co-reference, this is the best sub-optimal solution.".
- CoText comment "The context of an Expression .\nA CoText is a neighborhood of a certain chunk of text, which can be built based on a syntactic rule (all words from the sentence\nwhere the chunk occurs), an associative rule (all terms that are related to the chunk across the texts of a corpus, \ngiven a certain statistical threshold), etc.".
- ConstructionRule comment "A description of how to build an entity. For example, a logical rule, a productive rule, a statistical algorithm, etc.".
- Context comment "Any context, such as:\n\n- dul:Situation (the circumstantial context of denoted Entity(ies))\n- Paradigm (the cultural context of expressed Meaning(s))\n- CoText (the informational context of Expression(s))\n- dul:Description (the relational context of Concept(s))\n- KnowledgeCommunity (the social context of conceptualizing Agent(s))\n- dul:Place (the spatial context of Entity(ies))\n\nbut also a dul:PhysicalPlace, a dul:Event, etc. In practice, everything that is said to be a context for something else.\n\nNotice that certain contexts can be given independently from the entities that are contextualized (e.g. the ones listed above), others need a core entity and a rule to build its neighborhood, and still others can be classified as such when a certain relation is applied to them.\nFor example, a scientific theory is a dul:Description that works as a context for its dul:Concept(s), and can be given independently from the concepts, which can remain implicit to a certain extent. On the contrary, a CoText is actually a neighborhood of a certain chunk of text, which can be built based on a syntagmatic rule (all words from the sentence where the chunk occurs), an associative rule (all terms that are related to the chunk across the texts of a corpus, given a certain statistical threshold), etc.\nContexts can also emerge based on what relations are considered \"context triggers\". For example, in this ontology very different relations: part, participation, setting, membership, acting for, localization, etc. are considered context triggers by adding owl:subPropertyOf axioms to the property: isContextOf. Since the class Context has an equivalent axiom to isContextOf someValuesFrom dul:Entity, everything has a property that is declared subPropertyOf isContextOf, will be inferred to be a Context as well.".
- Expression comment "Any information that either dul:expresses a Meaning or denotes a Reference".
- Meaning comment "Any conceptualization that dul:isExpressedBy an Expression, or isInterpretationOf a Reference".
- Reference comment "Any Entity that isDenotedBy an Expression, or that hasInterpretation some Meaning".
- denotes comment "A relation between expressions and any Entity (including expressions). \nIt can be used to talk about e.g. entities denoted by proper nouns: the proper noun 'Leonardo da Vinci' denotes the Person Leonardo da Vinci; as well as to talk about sets of entities that can be described by a common noun: the common noun 'person' denotes the collection of all persons in a domain of discourse.".
- hasContext comment "A catch-all property for all notions of Context considered in LMM.".
- hasInterpretant comment "The Peircean interpretant relation, widely adopted in semiotics: a dul:InformationObject isInterpretantFor another, e.g. fourLeggedFriendOfHumans isInterpretantFor dog. \nSynonymy, associativity, and even topical proximity are all sources for interpretants, e.g.: domestic dog isInterpretantFor dog (synonymy); bark isInterpretantFor dog (associativity); veterinary isInterpretantFor dog (topical proximity).\nSemantic mechanisms such as metonymy depend on the interpretant relation.\nThe interpretant relation is here taken as very broad, also accepting InformationRealization(s) as interpretants.".
- hasInterpretation comment "The relation between a Meaning and a Reference : a Meaning gives unity to a Collection of entities.\nA same Reference can be given different interpretations, for example, an old cradle can be given a unifying Meaning based on the original aesthetic design, the functionality it was built for, or a new aesthetic functionality in which it can be used as a flower pot.\nThis relation allows to generalize over the following DOLCE-Ultralite relations: dul:isClassifedBy, dul:isCoveredBy, dul:isDescribedBy, dul:isUnifiedBy, and dul:satisfies".
- isInterpretantFor comment "The Peircean interpretant relation, widely adopted in semiotics: a dul:InformationObject isInterpretantFor another, e.g. fourLeggedFriendOfHumans isInterpretantFor dog. \nSynonymy, associativity, and even topical proximity are all sources for interpretants, e.g.: domestic dog isInterpretantFor dog (synonymy); bark isInterpretantFor dog (associativity); veterinary isInterpretantFor dog (topical proximity).\nSemantic mechanisms such as metonymy depend on the interpretant relation.\nThe interpretant relation is here taken as very broad, also accepting realization of information as interpretants.".
- isInterpretationOf comment "The relation between a Meaning and a Reference : a Meaning gives unity to an Entity or to a Collection of entities.\nA same Reference can be given different interpretations, for example, an old cradle can be given a unifying Meaning based on the original aesthetic design, the functionality it was built for, or a new aesthetic functionality in which it can be used as a flower pot.\nThis relation allows to generalize over the following DOLCE-Ultralite relations: dul:classifies, dul:covers, dul:describes, dul:unifies, and dul:isSatisfiedBy".
- relatedMeaning comment "A relation between any two meanings.".
- LMM_L2.owl comment "An ontology for aligning existing linguistic ontologies, and for describing the research objects of NLP.\nIt uses the ontology IOLite.owl, a plugin of DOLCE-Ultralite for information objects; it imports LMM_L1.owl, a design pattern for the basic semiotic categories.\nThe ontology also includes a proposal to match term types to referenced entity types, as an example of the usage of this ontology in NER and sense tagging applications.".
- AssociativeContext comment "An associative rule is a lmm1:CoText where a neighborhood of a chunk of text is built out of the terms related to the chunk across the texts of a corpus, e.g. given a certain statistical threshold.".
- ConceptExpression comment "A Term that expresses a Meaning, and denotes a MultipleReference, e.g. 'Dog', 'Black box'".
- ConceptReference comment "A MultipleReference that is also a TypeCollection, i.e. a Collection whose members constitute the maximal set of individuals that share the same (named) type, i.e. a Concept . \nE.g. 'the Italians', 'the nurses', 'the automotive workers'. \n\nThe Expressions that denote such references are typically composed by a determiner ('the' in English), and a noun phrase in plural form.\n\nConcept references can be empty collections, e.g. 'the square circles'.".
- ContextualExpression comment "A Term that denotes a Reference via anaphora or deixis, e.g. 'the dog over there', 'all my family', 'the current ACME employees', 'the lion described above'.".
- ContextualReference comment "An IndividualReference that is denoted by a ContextualExpression (anaphoric or deictic), e.g. 'the book in my bag', 'the book mentioned at the beginning of the story'.\nThe extensional interpretation of Named and Contextual references in a de-reified model can be equivalent, reflecting the paraphrastic property of natural languages, e.g. the extensional interpretations of 'Linosa' and 'the Italian most southern island' are equivalent. This corresponds to saying that names and contextual expressions can denote the same entities.".
- ExperimentalSetting comment "A plan modeled in order to carry out experiments. Roles ('features') can be defined for featured entities that provide evidence for classifying an entity, describing a behavior, etc.".
- ExtensionalReference comment "Extensional references are collections that require an extensional enumeration (e.g. 'John and Mary'), or an anaphora that allows to extract an implicit enumeration (e.g. 'the books on my table'). Hence, extensional references have individual references as members.\n\nIndividual references in the extensional reference must be in the setting of some Situation, which means that extensional references only exist if some fact is described by an observer/interpreter.\n\nThe terms expressing extensional references can be names or contextual expressions.\n\nThe extensional interpretation of Concept and Extensional references in a de-reified (abstract) model can be equivalent, reflecting the paraphrastic property of natural languages, e.g. the extensional interpretations of 'IberianCountry' and {Spain, Portugal, Andorra, Gibraltar} are equivalent. This corresponds to saying that concept expressions and contextual expressions can denote the same entities, while having different intensional interpretations (meanings).".
- IndividualReference comment "Any LMM1:Reference that isInstanceOf a dul:Concept".
- MultipleReference comment "Any LMM1:Reference that is also a dul:Collection, and can have members that are individual references.\nAs a collection, a multiple reference can be covered by a dul:Concept, whose instances are the members of the MultipleReference . For example, JohnDoe (an IndividualReference) isMemberOf ACMEEmployees (a MultipleReference), that dul:isCoveredBy the Employee concept. It also holds that JohnDoe isInstanceOf Employee".
- Name comment "A proper noun that denotes an IndividualReference, e.g. 'John Zorn', 'Daimler Benz'.".
- NamedEntity comment "An IndividualReference that is denoted by a Name, e.g. 'John_Zorn' (as an Entity).".
- lexicalizesOE comment "Lexicalization for ontology elements.".
- irw.owl comment "This ontology is an evolution of IRE ontology. It describes identification of resources on the Web, through the definition of relationships between resources and their representations on the Web. The requirement is to describe what can be identified by URIs and how this is handled e.g. in form of HTTP requests and reponds.".
- AbstractResource comment "Abstract things. They are combinatorial spaces. They cannot be located in space-time. Examples are: the infinite set of integers, real numbers, formal entities, relations, functions, the infinite set of names that can be defined in namespaces.".
- ConceptualResource comment "Resources that are created in the social communication process. A conceptual resource does not exist if it's not in a social communication. For example: legal entities, political entities, social relations, concepts, etc.".
- InformationResource comment "They are *about* something, this something can be everything (rdfs:Resource, owl:Thing, ire:Entity) including AnalogResource. Their essential characteristics can be conveyed in a single message. They can be associated with a URI, and can have a WebRepresentation, in this case they are called WebResource. They have some realization, for example: the text of Moby Dick is an InformationResource, a book containing the text of Moby Dick is one of its realization. The intuition behind the class InformationResource is the same behind the class ir:InformationRealization (cloned from Dolce Ultra Lite).".
- NonInformationResource comment "All Semantic Web resources that are not information resources. They include abstract, conceptual, and physical resources.".
- PhysicalEntityResource comment "Something that occupies its own space and has its own mass in the real world, and can have a \"virtual delegate\" on the Web. For example physical people, artifacts, places, bodies, chimical substances, biological entities, etc.".
- Resource comment "This class is meant to express the same intuition of rdfs:Resource but it is defined here in order to have OWL-DL compaibility. In an OWL Full version of this ontology we would have this class owl:equivalentClass rdfs:Resource.".
- SemanticWebURI comment "The subset of URI that identify typically analog things. In general they identify any resource but are not directly resolvable. They do not identify an accessible information resource.They act as a virtual delegate for exactly one resource, typically analog. They cause a re-direct or any other type of mechanism that makes the web server resolve another URI that is associated with a WebReource (see range of redirectTo)".
- WebRepresentation comment "The realization of a message encoding that 'goes on the wire' according to an interaction protocol (e.g. http) in order to resolve a Web accessible resource. Representation have neither a URL nor a URI, they are associated with the URL of the Web Resource they represent. Representation are disjoint with Web resources".
- WebResource comment "InformationResources that have at least one WebRepresentation and at least a URI. For example, a WebResource containing the text of Moby Dick and its WebRepresentation encoded in HTML in English language.".
- accesses comment "A causal connection from a resource to the thing identified.".
- hasURIString comment "The name of this datatype property previously was \"hasURI\", but in this ontology a URI is modelled as a class, hence I though that it's better to clarify, even in the property name that it refers to the string value of a URI.".
- hasURIString comment "The value of the URI, a string compliant with the URI specification.".
- identifies comment "The relashionship between a URI and a resource. A URI identify only one resource, it acts as a \"virtual\" delegate for that resource on the Web. This is different from the refersTo relashionships. This latter holds between Resources, and it's not functional. For example, http://www.example.com#me identifies only john, while john's homepage http://www.example.com/john.html refersTo me, the place where he works, his job, his personal interests, etc. If I want to describe John's characteristics e.g. his name, age, etc. on the Web, I will attach them to http://www.example.com#john. On the other hand, http://www.example.com/john.html identifies john's homepage, which is an information resource.".
- isLocationOf comment "A relation between a WebServer and a WebRepresentation. It indicates that a WebServer concretely can respond to an HTTP request with a particular Web Representation.".
- isReferencedBy comment "The relation between a resource and the information resource that is about it.".
- isRequestedBy comment "WebClients that have requested a URI, like in typical HTTP GET requests.".
- locatedOn comment "A relation between a WebRepresentation and a WebServer, indicating that the WebRepresentation can be obtained by e.g. an HTTP request to the WebServer.".
- redirectsTo comment "Redirections can be used outside the Semantic Web between just normal information resources, their domain and range says nothing about the type of resource. The only important aspect is that the reseource that is the destination of the redirection must be associated with a WebRepresentation, hence it must be a WebResource. This property can be used as top property for expressing special types of redirections e.g. TAG's 303 redirection or hash convention.".
- refersTo comment "The relation between a URI and the resources it refers to.".
- requests comment "Expresses the notion behind of a request operation of a web client, exemplified by a typical HTTP GET request.".
- resolvesTo comment "Relates a URI to a concrete Web server, which currently is done by mapping a URI to an IP address or addresses.".
- protonext comment "PROTON (Proto Ontology), Extent module".
- Account comment "An explicit agreement between agents. Typically, service providers (e.g. banks or ISPs) provide accounts to their customers or users, which are considered account owners. The existence of the account depends on the provider, even though the user owns it in some metaphoric sense. Examples could be bank, ISP, e-Commerce, ICQ, email accounts. The accounts are usually aligned with a sort of contract.".
- Acquirement comment "The event of the acquiring of one organization by another.".
- Activity comment "Each activity is a Happening which involves volition and participants. It has temporal dimension. It is distinguished from Events by the fact that the activity does not trigger change of state and does not have a conceptual end point.".
- Address comment "Any sort of address, specifying how to locate something somewhere.".
- Airport comment "An airport, including heliports. NIMA GNS designators AIRP, AIRH.".
- Album comment "An recording of a several songs. Usually from the same singer.".
- Animal comment "Animals are a major group of multicellular, eukaryotic organisms. Their body plan eventually becomes fixed as they develop. Most animals are motile. (Wikipedia)".
- Architect comment "Any architect, a profession of planning, design and oversight of the construction of buildings. (Wikipedia)".
- ArtPerformance comment "A specific performance taking place at some moment, somewhere. Quite often starting at 19:00 in the theatre, stadium, etc.".
- ArtProfession comment "A profession in the area of art.".
- Article comment "A relatively short document published as a part of Resource Collection.".