RE: Why not to shortcut the "sense" object

Armando,

I assumed a DL (e.g. a language of the OWL family) as the logic backbone 
of the model, and interpreted arrows as domain\range restrictions on roles 
(properties). Maybe I was wrong. But if the backbone is RDF, then I'm 
fuzzy about what arrows\resources represent. Sorry for asking such a basic 
question, but how is it?

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
_________________________________________________



"Armando Stellato" <stellato@info.uniroma2.it> 
Sent by: Armando Stellato <stellato75@gmail.com>
12/10/2012 18:35

To
Guido Vetere/Italy/IBM@IBMIT, "'public-ontolex'" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
cc

Subject
RE: Why not to shortcut the "sense" object






>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!
 
Armando
 
 
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
 
All, 

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. 

Regards, 

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 


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

Subject
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.
Regards, 
John 

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
Società con unico azionista
Società soggetta all?attività di direzione e coordinamento di 
International Business Machines Corporation

(Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise 
above)

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
Società con unico azionista
Società soggetta all?attività di direzione e coordinamento di 
International Business Machines Corporation

(Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise 
above)