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

Re: input document for discussion on Friday

From: John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:59:42 +0100
Message-ID: <CAC5njqop=FSXsL9Y8PikoYmHSpd6pjheBeQrzKR_FjzBHcRuAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Cc: "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>

Some comments

ex:lemon rdf:type ontolex:Lex.
> ex:lemon ontolex:hasSense lemon_1.
> lemon_1 owl:subClassOf <http://dbpedia.org/page/Lemon>.
> ex:lemon ontolex:hasSense lemon_2.
Thus :lemon_2 is an individual

> lemon_2 owl:subClassOf ex:DefectiveItem.

Thus :lemon_2 is a class

This leads to a punning of the sense... is this intended?

And further (not expressible in OWL2 DL):
> ∀x; y lex(x; y) ∃s Sense(s) ^ hasSense(x; s) ^ representedBy(s; y)

I really don't think we should go beyond OWL2 DL

 it is true that it blows up the complexity of the
> model. However, it simplifi es the usage of the model

Surely this is a contradiction?

I think this can be handled eff ectively by query expansion (as above) in
> any
> implementation of an API for the lexicon-ontology model

Not all implementations will be query based... for example OWLAPI isn't

This can be done through SPARQL-construct

The construct query is:

CONSTRUCT { ?entry ontolex:hasSense _:sense .
                             _:sense ontolex:representedBy ?entity }
    ?entry ontolex:ref ?entity

Of course, this leads to issues as the constructed sense is a blank node...
I believe that like OWL we should advise against the use of blank nodes for
"concepts" within the lexicon. See

ex:lemon rdf:type ontolex:Lex.
> ex:lemon ontolex:hasSense lemon_1.
> lemon_1 ontolex:representedBy <http://dbpedia.org/page/Lemon>.
> ex:lemon ontolex:ref <http://dbpedia.org/page/Lemon>.

Then the question certainly is how many senses I get back with the query.
> Ideally, I would like to get one sense back.

Yeah technically that is what should happen... however here we have to
apply the semantics of RDFS, in that the blank node we construct is matched
to lemon_1. Of course, the downside to this is that this is non-polynomial
to solve with generic solvers... and tricky in a specialized implementation
(also I think it is incompatible with OWL2-DL)

One question: do we want to model that for any pair of class and lex, there
> is at most one sense relating them? Can we do this in OWL?

I would say no, I think we have found use cases for multiple sense between
the same entry/entity in *lemon* (but can't remember at the moment... it'll
come to me)

As for in OWL... is this not it?



On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Philipp Cimiano <
cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:

> Dear all,
>  I have compiled a brief document as input for our discussion on Friday.
> We will discuss this proposal on Friday and collect comments and objections.
> Best regards,
> Philipp.
> --
> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
> Semantic Computing Group
> Excellence Cluster - Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
> University of Bielefeld
> Phone: +49 521 106 12249
> Fax: +49 521 106 12412
> Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.**de <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
> Room H-127
> Morgenbreede 39
> 33615 Bielefeld
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2012 12:00:10 UTC

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