Review Comment:
This paper describes the work done in order to publish some parts of the Italian lexicon Parole Simple Clips (PSC) as linked data according to the lemon ontology-lexicon model. Specifically, they performed three actions:
1. The conversion of the semantic layer of the PSC lexicon into OWL, resulting in an extension of the Simple OWL ontology
2. The conversion of the PSC nouns according to the lemon model
3. The linking of the lemon model with the Simple OWL ontology
In the introduction, the authors refer to Language Resources and Technology as an area of knowledge in its own, and quote some papers. According to the perspective with which they are approaching this matter, I would say that they should have referred to several initiatives in this domain that have been going on for many years now, such as FlareNet, Clarin, etc., or conferences such as LREC.
In section 2 the authors provide a general description of the lemon model and give some details about the special relation or linking holding between lemon lexical units and ontology concepts.
Section 3 is devoted to the description of the PSC lexicon and Simple OWL ontology. They explain that the semantics of the PSC lexicon is based on the Generative Lexicon theory, but the examples they provide do not really illustrate how the different dimensions of the meaning of a lexical entry are represented in the PSC. I believe these would help understand the difficulties in the transformation into the lemon model, which is described in section 4. Moreover, it would be interesting to know where the lexical relations of synonymy, polysemy, etc. are represented in the PSC.
Section 4 is the main section of the paper, since it explains how the conversion of the PSC lexicon into the lemon model took place. However, it is the most unclear section of the paper. Many questions remain open, and the authors do not really achieve to explain or justify the decisions taken. They state that, and I quote, “the lexical sense objects in Lemon don’t take part in semantic relations”. They should explain that this is so because these relations are captured in the ontology. On the contrary, they mean that, therefore, “it is not always possible to identify PSC Usems with lexical sense objects”. Why is this be a problem?
Similarly, they also refer to the fact that properties such as synonymy and antonymy only occur at the level of senses in lemon as being a problem. I believe this should not be seen as such, since lemon has other mechanisms in order to represent that. However, they propose to represent those lexical relations at the conceptual level in the Simple OWL ontology. As I see it, this is completely contradictory to the lemon philosophy.
Finally, in section 5 links are provided to the libraries that host the resources described.
Some format and language issues:
• I strongly advise the authors to revise the English of the paper.
• They should also check the use of acronyms (LRT, PSC). They should indicate it the first time they use them, and then use them consequently in the rest of the document. They have also used lemon both with capital letter and with small letter, indistinctly.
• At several stages, the same word appears twice. E.g., 1st paragraph, Unique Resource Identifiers Unique Resource Identifiers
|