[open-linguistics] Linguistic relevance

Sebastian Hellmann hellmann at informatik.uni-leipzig.de
Tue Feb 24 08:30:49 UTC 2015

A while back,  there were a few vocab meetings for  the geo domain.  Their main conclusion was to start separating the place from thing that's at the place.  Example: the Eifel Tower has coordinates x, y versus the Eifel Tower is at a location with coordinates x, y 

The discussion here seems to go towards a separation between the content,  the intention and the usage. 

As a thought,  could we find criteria for all three? E.g. does mere usage in Language Technology qualify?  

All the best,  Sebastian 

On 24 February 2015 02:29:18 CET, Christian Chiarcos <christian.chiarcos at web.de> wrote:
>> Christian's argument that a content-based definition may exclude
>> appropriate resources deserves serious consideration. However, it
>> questionable that an intention-based definition "provides a very
>> objective criterion". Millions of lawyers earn their livings arguing
>> what the intents of legislators, murderers, and other persons were.
>Hm, true. The intention does not, but the accompanying publication, the
>affiliation or specialization would. Would it be better to avoid
>like "intentionally" or "created for" and simply require an
>publication or an appropriate affiliation? IMHO, this would not make a
>difference in the application of the definition, but without further
>motivation this seems a little ad hoc, maybe even discriminating ...
>Just a thought ;)
>open-linguistics mailing list
>open-linguistics at lists.okfn.org
>Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-linguistics

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-linguistics/attachments/20150224/4a9932ab/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the open-linguistics mailing list