- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 08:29:49 +0200
- To: Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es>, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- CC: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>, Roberto Navigli <navigli@di.uniroma1.it>, Tiziano Flati <tiziano.flati@gmail.com>, lider <lider@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, "public-bpmlod@w3.org" <public-bpmlod@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <53803C5D.9050800@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Hi Felix, do you have a pointer to the ITS spec? Best regards , Philipp. Am 23.05.14 19:42, schrieb Jorge Gracia: > Hi Felix, > > Yes, I think that exploring the commonalities of both models makes a > lot of sense. Not sure if they have to be merged , but I have the > feeling that our lemon module could largely reuse ITS for some things. > At the ontolex group we will treat the variation/translation module > again at some point, I think. That would be a good opportunity to > explore the role of ITS. I will keep you updated! > > Regards, > Jorge > > > 2014-05-23 18:49 GMT+02:00 Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org > <mailto:fsasaki@w3.org>>: > > Hi Jorge and all, > > would it make sense to ask the ontolex group and the ITS IG to > merge their models? Otherwise there would be a confusing > situation: two models for the same purpose. > > The issues are probably details. I saw e.g. in the paper that > there is a translationConfidence OW property. It looks similar to > mtConfidence in ITS, but there are details ideally to merge like > what data type to use, whether to require relating confidence > value to information about translation tools (because auto > generated values cannot be interpreted without) etc. > > Best, > > Felix > > Am 23.05.2014 um 15:48 schrieb Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es > <mailto:jgracia@fi.upm.es>>: > >> Dear Tiziano, Roberto >> >> You could also consider using the lemon translation module to >> represent explicit translations as linked data. This is currently >> under development in the ONTOLEX group but there is a lemon-based >> version already available, that I will present at LREC next week >> [1]. The idea is reifying the translation relation so you can >> attach additional information to it (source, target, confidence, >> provenance, etc.) [2] >> >> Regards, >> >> Jorge >> >> [1] >> http://ra.cps.unizar.es:8080/PUBLICATIONS/attachedFiles/document/LREC2014_translations_V11.pdf >> [2] http://purl.org/net/translation# >> >> >> >> >> 2014-05-23 11:58 GMT+02:00 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie >> <mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>>: >> >> Roberto, Tiziano, >> Thanks for that. >> >> Have you considered already how you might allow third parties >> to QA and perhaps correct those translations? That is, some >> sort of process by which proposed MT translations between >> senses can be promoted to more authoritative, human checked >> translations, and marked as such? >> >> The ITS text analytics and/or terminology data categories, >> which also have confidence scores could be useful for >> annotating such a process: >> http://www.w3.org/TR/its20/#textanalysis >> http://www.w3.org/TR/its20/#terminology >> >> To enable such checking and progression in the >> authoritativeness of senses in different languages, it is >> important that you record what senses are a translation of >> what other senses. >> >> In relation to the senses that are extracted from Wikipedia >> interlanguage links. Do you consider those 'translations', >> and in particular can you tell from those which is the source >> and which is the target? >> >> Interested to hear what you think. >> >> cheers, >> Dave >> >> >> >> On 22/05/2014 17:41, Roberto Navigli wrote: >>> Thanks Felix! To answer Dave's comment: translations come >>> from the automatic translations of semantically annotated >>> corpora, as Tiziano said, and we have a confidence for each >>> of these translations together with the source of the >>> original text. >>> >>> Best, >>> Roberto >>> >>> >>> 2014-05-22 18:35 GMT+02:00 Tiziano Flati >>> <tiziano.flati@gmail.com <mailto:tiziano.flati@gmail.com>>: >>> >>> @Felix: >>> >>> I am wondering if ITS 2.0 properties could help >>> here, see >>> https://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/ITS-RDF_mapping >>> There is mtConfidence which provides the confidence >>> value for machine translation and >>> mtConfidenceAnnotatorsRef to identify the tool used. >>> Also, there is provenance related properties, >>> starting at :org, until :revToolRef, that could >>> identify the provenance information you need. The >>> underlying definitions for the two ITS data >>> categories are at >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/its20/#provenance >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/its20/#mtconfidence >>> >>> Yes, I think that the ITS 2.0 can definitely be a very >>> good point to explore. At the moment I don't think we >>> need modelling properties more complex than those ones >>> (such as mtConfidenceRule, etc.), so I think this fits >>> well our needs. >>> >>> @Lewis: >>> >>> Do you know currently the provenance of the >>> translation between senses in babelNet. Have you >>> produced any of the translations yourself, or to you >>> just take the links where they are present in the >>> source resources, e.g. DBpedia. >>> What is the policy in Babelnet, is some translation >>> better than none, or is there a translation >>> confidence threshold, e.g. based on human checking, >>> Mt confidence or logical inference etc that you employ? >>> >>> BabelNet translations can come from explicit resource >>> information (e.g., Wikipedia interlanguage links) or as >>> automatic translations supported by millions of >>> sense-tagged sentences coming from Wikipedia and Semcor. >>> In conclusion, AFAIK, BabelNet *does have* translation >>> quality estimation, so I think that indication about >>> confidence could be also provided. (Roberto, correct me >>> if I am wrong) >>> >>> Thank you all for your comments and suggestions :) >>> Tiziano >>> >>> 2014-05-22 16:07 GMT+02:00 Dave Lewis >>> <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie <mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>>: >>> >>> Hi Tiziano, Roberto, >>> Do you know currently the provenance of the >>> translation between senses in babelNet. Have you >>> produced any of the translations yourself, or to you >>> just take the links where they are present in the >>> source resources, e.g. DBpedia. >>> >>> In a localization or MT application we look at in >>> CNGL and FALCON, where we may use translation to >>> guide translators or help train MT engines, the >>> provenance is important so some policies can be >>> applied to reduce the propagation of inaccurate >>> translation, or translation that are not appropriate >>> to the context at hand - so those ITS attributes are >>> really important there. To thins extend, when >>> representing this as linked data, we define >>> 'wasTranslatedFrom' as a property of >>> 'prov:wasDerivedFrom' to reify other provenance >>> meta-data - agents, tools, context etc. >>> >>> What is the policy in Babelnet, is some translation >>> better than none, or is there a translation >>> confidence threshold, e.g. based on human checking, >>> Mt confidence or logical inference etc that you employ? >>> >>> many thanks, >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> On 22/05/2014 10:42, Felix Sasaki wrote: >>>> Hi Titziano, >>>> >>>> sorry that I could not make the call due to >>>> personal reasons. >>>> >>>> In the draft I saw under „translation“ this issue: >>>> >>>> „Issues: Information about translation confidence >>>> (was it humanly or automatically produced? if >>>> automatic, with what confidence score?) and >>>> translation provenance (what text(s) does the >>>> translation come from? who translated and with what >>>> tool?). >>>> Another issue concerns whether the >>>> relation lexinfo:translation is essential or not: >>>> every sense in a language within a BabelSynset is, >>>> in fact, a translation of any other sense >>>> in another language, so that this information could >>>> actually be derived (problem of redundancy). >>>> However, having data linked one to each other could >>>> also be a benefit, since the information is >>>> explicit in the resource.“ >>>> >>>> I am wondering if ITS 2.0 properties could help >>>> here, see >>>> >>>> https://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/ITS-RDF_mapping >>>> >>>> There is mtConfidence which provides the confidence >>>> value for machine translation and >>>> mtConfidenceAnnotatorsRef to identify the tool used. >>>> >>>> Also, there is provenance related properties, >>>> starting at :org, until :revToolRef, that could >>>> identify the provenance information you need. The >>>> underlying definitions for the two ITS data >>>> categories are at >>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/its20/#provenance >>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/its20/#mtconfidence >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Felix >>>> >>>> Am 22.05.2014 um 10:12 schrieb Tiziano Flati >>>> <tiziano.flati@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:tiziano.flati@gmail.com>>: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> we have compiled a first draft of guidelines for >>>>> the conversion of BabelNet as Linguistic Linked >>>>> Data. The initial draft is here >>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/184C_AjY7_PYBSc8SnAFghGLyTo1v312N34dsP9QZokI/edit#>. >>>>> >>>>> We can probably integrate this into the BPMLOD >>>>> community report both as a separate document and >>>>> in the form of all our resource-dependent and >>>>> independent details/comments. >>>>> Any feedback and comment is also very appreciated >>>>> and will help us improving the draft. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Tiziano Flati and Roberto Navigli >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ===================================== >>> Roberto Navigli >>> Dipartimento di Informatica >>> Sapienza University of Rome >>> Viale Regina Elena 295 (second floor) >>> 00161 Roma Italy >>> Phone: +39 0649255161 <tel:%2B39%200649255161> - Fax: +39 06 >>> 8541842 <tel:%2B39%2006%208541842> >>> Home Page: http://wwwusers.di.uniroma1.it/~navigli >>> <http://wwwusers.di.uniroma1.it/%7Enavigli> >>> ===================================== >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jorge Gracia, PhD >> Ontology Engineering Group >> Artificial Intelligence Department >> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid >> http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~jgracia/ >> <http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/%7Ejgracia/> > > > > > -- > Jorge Gracia, PhD > Ontology Engineering Group > Artificial Intelligence Department > Universidad Politécnica de Madrid > http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~jgracia/ > <http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/%7Ejgracia/> -- Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano Phone: +49 521 106 12249 Fax: +49 521 106 12412 Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS) Raum 2.307 Universität Bielefeld Inspiration 1 33619 Bielefeld
Received on Saturday, 24 May 2014 06:30:27 UTC