W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ontolex@w3.org > October 2012

RE: Why not to shortcut the "sense" object

From: Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:35:57 +0200
To: "'Guido Vetere'" <gvetere@it.ibm.com>, "'public-ontolex'" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Message-ID: <02c501cda897$a8df7fc0$fa9e7f40$@uniroma2.it>
>From what I got, and hope not to be wrong (it’s useful also for me to
clarify as I missed a couple of calls on September), OntologyEntity is a
generic rdf:Resource of one of the main entities in the main vocabularies
(aka: OWL and SKOS, thus: property, class, individual, skos concept…).

Another question to John from my side: from your email it seemed to be
against stating the propertyChain axiom on (means, <meaning,representedBy>)
implying that the direct Entry ---means--> OntologyEntity from "Lexical
Entry -> meaning -> Sense -> representedBy -> OntologyEntity"  but then the
sentence: “Here the difference is 1 named elements vs. 3 named elements, but
as stated above, at least half of users (data consumers) will have to
understand all 4 names...” instilled some doubt in my interpretation…


Are you voting against the larger structure as a whole (thus keeping only
the Entry ---means--> OntologyEntity structure), or against the
propertyChain axiom? I really got the second, though I’m not even sure how
adding the p.chain axiom (or not doing it) would change anything for the
user or consumer. I’m sure I’m missing something, so sorry in advance for my
potential misinterpretation.


Have a nice we!





From: Guido Vetere [mailto:gvetere@it.ibm.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 6:08 PM
To: public-ontolex
Subject: Re: Why not to shortcut the "sense" object



I apologize for missing the call today. Here just some short remark. 

"Entry ---means--> OntologyEntity" means that if you want to predicate on
the meaning relationship (e.g. to associate some grammatical constraint) you
have to resort on a meta predicates (e.g. OWL Annotations). 

"Lexical Entry -> meaning -> Sense -> representedBy -> OntologyEntity"
sounds good, but instead of 'representedBy' I would say 'characterizes' or
something alike, meaning that a linguistic sense gives a (cultural) shape to
an entity. Moreover, it is not clear to me (maybe you discussed about that)
whether OntologyEntity is a first order TOP concept (e.g. equivalent to OWL
Thing). In this case, note that in order to tell that the instance of Sense
'cat#1' (i.e. the first sense of the lemma 'cat') represents an Animal, you
have to write something like: 

cat#1 INSTANCEOF (Sense AND characterizes ONLY Animal). 

Is it correct? 

If there is something that I can do, please let me know. 


Guido Vetere
Manager, Center for Advanced Studies IBM Italia
Rome                                     Trento
Via Sciangai 53                       Via Sommarive 18
00144 Roma, Italy                   38123 Povo in Trento, Italy
+39 (0)6 59662137                 +39 (0)461 312312

Mobile: +39 3357454658

John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> 
Sent by: johnmccrae@gmail.com 

12/10/2012 16:35 


public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org> 




Why not to shortcut the "sense" object



Hi all, 

As discussed today in the telco there is a proposal to introduce a shortcut
replacing "Entry ---sense--> Sense ---representedBy--> OntologyEntity" with
"Entry ---means--> OntologyEntity", while this is theory sounds good, I
contend that in practice it is not worth the effort. (This is based on
practical experience with the lemon model). 

*	It does not make the model easier to use: It is clear that for data
producers this proposal simplifies the matter (as less links and URIs are
required), however for data consumers it complicates the models (as they
need to understand both methods of linking and be able to infer equivalence
between the two methods). Thus, if EaseOfUse = (% of Consumers) ×
EaseOfUse(Consumer) + (% of Producers) × EaseOfUse(Producer), hence if we
assume there will be approx. as many producers as consumer then we need only
ask is it worth "is the extra effort for the producer less than that for the
consumer", i.e., "would you rather implement a system that infers similarity
across multiple representations, or use extra links and URIs"? 
*	It does not make the model easier to understand: While, I understand
that the sense object is nebulous and difficult per se to understand, I
would still argue that the clearest measure of how easy to understand a
model is, is the number of named elements it has (as many users may not need
to deeply understand the meaning of a sense, but be happy to know that
"translation", "antonymy" and "register" go there). Here the difference is 1
named elements vs. 3 named elements, but as stated above, at least half of
users (data consumers) will have to understand all 4 names... if we assume
out of the producers 70% do not need to represent senses (and thus any
associated properties, "translation", "antonymy", "register") then the
average number of links a user will need to understand is 4 × 0.5 + 3 × 0.5
× 0.3 + 1 × 0.5 × 0.7 = 2.8... so it makes the model all of 7% easier to
understand! Worse, this figure is overgenerous as: I expect there to more
data consumers than producers and I expect at least 50% of users to require
sense modelling.


IBM Italia S.p.A.
Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI) 
Cap. Soc. euro 347.256.998,80
C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
Societą con unico azionista
Societą soggetta all’attivitą di direzione e coordinamento di International
Business Machines Corporation

(Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise above)
Received on Friday, 12 October 2012 16:35:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 10:57:26 UTC