Re: relations about lexical entries

Hi,

I summarized the discussion of this thread here

http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Properties-and-Relations-of-Entries

Can you please check it is a good summary?

Regards,
John

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:01 PM, John McCrae <
jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:

> Sorry I think in that case I meant to merge "Relations between lexical
> entries" and Lexical and linguistic properties of lexical entries"
>
> Regards,
> John
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Philipp Cimiano <
> cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>
>> **
>> John, all,
>>
>>  concerning the "lexical variant an paraphrases" I had something quite
>> different in mind. The requirement I had in mind here is that the lexicon
>> should capture different (lexicalized) constructions for expressing one and
>> the same concept or property.
>>
>> Take the property leaderOfGroup(X,Y). This can be expressed in very
>> different ways:
>>
>> X leads Y
>> X heads Y
>> X is the leader of Y
>> X is the head of Y
>> X is the boss of Y
>> Y's leader X
>> Y's leader/head is X
>>
>> same for a property like artist(X,Y), which can be expressed as:
>>
>> Y created X
>> Y is the creator of Y
>> Y painted X (if it is a painting)
>> X's painter/creator is Y
>>
>> etc. etc.
>>
>> This is what I meant with lexical variants and paraphrases. And I think
>> this should not be conflated with your list of variants 1-3 (which I agree
>> with actually ;-)
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Philipp.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 20.08.12 18:34, schrieb John McCrae:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Can I suggest we merge the following requirements on "Lexical Variant and
>> Paraphrases" and "Lexical and linguistic properties of lexical entries"?
>>
>> My reasoning is that it seems that what Lupe is suggesting relies heavily
>> on the definition of properties. i.e., to model geographical variants,
>> register variants or diachronic variants, we need to be able to state the
>> geographical, register or diachronic properties of the two variants. As
>> such *we can think of variation in terms of the properties that vary*and those that do not. Put more clearly, variants are entries that are
>> similar (have the same property values) except for some property, e.g.,
>> translation is variation in language, pluralization is variation in number,
>> etc.
>>
>> Considering the list of variants above, the following properties are
>> preserved by the type of variance
>>
>>    - Orthographic variants. Preserved: Pronounciation, syntax, most
>>    pragmatic, semantic properties. Differs: Generally context or geographic
>>    usage
>>    - Inflectional variants. Preserved: part-of-speech, pragmatic and
>>    semantic properties.
>>    - Morphosyntactic variants. Preserved: semantic properties, most
>>    pragmatic properties.
>>    - Stylistic+Register variants. Preserved: semantics.
>>    - Diachronic variants. Preserved: semantics
>>    - Dialectical variants. Preserved: semantics
>>    - Explicative variants. Preserved: extensional semantics (not
>>    intensional)
>>    - Semantic variants. Preserved: partial semantics
>>
>> As such I would go for splitting up the categories as follows
>>
>> *Group 1a. Orthographic variants*
>>
>>    - Historical Orthographic variants. e.g., different scripts such as
>>    for Azeri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijani_alphabet)
>>    - Geo-orthographic variants. e.g., "localize" vs. "localise"
>>    - Semantic-orthographics variants. e.g., "取る" (toru - "to take
>>    (remove from a location)") vs "撮る" (toru - "to take (a photo)")
>>
>> *Group 1b. Inflectional variants*
>>
>>    - Pluralization, verb form inflection, comparatives and superlatives
>>    - Synthesis (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_language)
>>
>> *Group 1c. Morphosyntactic Variants*
>>
>>    - Rephrasing: e.g., "cancer of the mouth" vs. "mouth cancer"
>>    - Derivation (e.g., Nominalization): e.g., "lexicon", "lexical",
>>    "lexicalize"
>>    - Pleonasm: "tuna" vs "tuna fish"
>>    - Abbreviation: e.g., AIDS..... Philipp> Any variation has some
>>    (sight) pragmatic implication, abbreviation for me is morphosyntactic as
>>    the motivation is brevity rather than connotation.
>>
>> *Group 2a. Pragmatic Variants*
>>
>>    - stylistic or connotative variants (man and bloke)
>>    - diachronic variants (tuberculosis and phthisis)
>>    - dialectal variants (gasoline vs. petrol)
>>    - pragmatic or register variants (headache and cephalalgia; swine flu
>>    and pig flu and H1N1 and Mexic pandemic flu)
>>
>> *Group 2b. Circumlocutive variants*
>>
>>    - explicative variants (immigration law and law for regulating and
>>    controlling immigration)
>>
>> *Group 3. Non-synonymous variants*
>>
>>    - Modification: "MRSA", vs "hospital-acquired MRSA"
>>    - Hypernym/Hyponymy/Antonymy
>>    - Cross-lingual narrowing/broadening: "river" vs "rivière/fleuve"
>>
>>
>>  Does this sound sensible or did I miss something?
>>
>>  Regards,
>> John
>>
>>   On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 9:56 PM, lupe aguado <gac280771@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Ontolex members
>>>
>>> With this message we would like to start the discussion about the
>>> requirements on “Relations between lexical entries”. I put the message as a
>>> draft in the Ontolex community Group and forgot to send it to you. Sorry!
>>>
>>> In our opinion, two types of relations need to be taken into account in
>>> an ontology-lexicon model:
>>>
>>>    1. *relations between labels in different natural languages,* and
>>>    2. *relations between labels within the same natural language.*
>>>
>>> Before continuing, we would like to define the two scenarios that we
>>> envisage:
>>>
>>>    1. *A.      **Multilingual labeling approach*
>>>
>>> In a multilingual labeling approach, we have a single conceptual
>>> structure, and we provide alternative labeling information in the
>>> ontology-lexicon model for each of the languages covered (in the same
>>> language or in different languages). This is possible whenever the
>>> languages covered share a single view on a certain domain. In this
>>> case, there will always be one or several labels in each natural language
>>> for naming or terming the concepts in the ontology.
>>>
>>>    1. *B.      **Cross-lingual linking or mapping approach*
>>>
>>> In this second scenario, there exist two independent monolingual
>>> ontologies, defined in different languages, but covering the same or
>>> similar subject domain. We aim at establishing links between the labels
>>> that describe the two ontologies. The establishment of these cross-lingual
>>> links could derive in cross-lingual ontology mappings. In this scenario,
>>> the conceptual structure of each ontology is modeled independently, and
>>> “linguistic links” or “mappings” can be established between the two.
>>>
>>> ---------
>>>
>>> Now, in a *multilingual labeling approach*, we will usually refer to
>>> “cross-lingual equivalents”.  Let us take for example an ontology of
>>> medical conditions. In such an ontology we can find terms such as menopause
>>> in English, and its cross-lingual equivalents: menopause in French,
>>> menopause in Danish, vaihdevuodet in Finnish or Menopause in German. This
>>> means that the “same” concept exists in the involved cultures and has an
>>> equivalent term in the corresponding language.
>>>
>>> On the contrary, in a *cross-lingual linking or mapping approach*, we
>>> could come across several types of relations among lexical entries due to
>>> the following reasons:
>>>
>>>    - conceptualization mismatches
>>>    - different levels of granularity
>>>
>>> In fact, granularity or viewpoint differences may also come up in a
>>> “monolingual” linking or mapping approach. However, conceptualization
>>> mismatches will be more common in a cross-lingual scenario. In this sense,
>>> we could account for several types of relations
>>>
>>> 1.            *Cross-lingual equivalence relations*, as in the
>>> multilingual labeling scenario. These would establish a relation between
>>> concepts that are not exactly the same (do not have the same intension
>>> and/or extension), but are close equivalents, because no exact equivalent
>>> exists.  Example: full professor in English – catedrático in Spanish –
>>> Professor in German. In order to distinguish them from the cross-lingual
>>> equivalents in the multilingual labeling scenario, we could term them: *cross-lingual
>>> close equivalents*? *Cross-lingual near equivalents*? Suggestions are
>>> welcome!!
>>>
>>> 2.            *Cross-lingual broad (narrow) equivalence relations*.
>>> These would establish a relation between concepts with different levels of
>>> granularity. This usually happens when one culture understands a concept or
>>> phenomenon with a higher granularity than the other, i.e., one culture has
>>> two or more concepts (and in its turn, terms for naming them) to describe
>>> the same phenomenon. Example: river in English – rivière and fleuve in
>>> French; Tötung in German – asesinato and homicidio in Spanish. Here again,
>>> suggestions for better examples are welcome.
>>>
>>> In the case no equivalent exists, we could still provide a term or
>>> description, using for this a mixed scenario, i.e., providing some labels
>>> or lexical entries for the concept we do not find an equivalent term in the
>>> other ontology, as in the multilingual labeling approach. For this, we
>>> consider two options:
>>>
>>> 3.            *Literal translation relations*. These are translations
>>> of terms that describe concepts that do not exist in the target language,
>>> and for which a literal or “word for word translation” is provided so that
>>> the concept is understood by the target language. Example: École normal in
>>> French– (French) Normal School in English; Presidente del Gobierno in
>>> Spanish – President of the Government in English.
>>>
>>> 4.            *Descriptive translation relations.* These are
>>> translations of terms that describe concepts that do not exist in the
>>> target language, and for which a description or definition (and not a term)
>>> is provided in the target language. Example: Panetone in Italian – bizcocho
>>> italiano que se consume en Nochevieja in Spanish. In this case, we could
>>> also opt for repeating the Italian Word plus the gloss.
>>>
>>> In the latter two cases, we could also provide a link to the closest
>>> equivalent or superclass (by means of the cross-lingual broad equivalence
>>> relation), and additionally provide a literal or descriptive translation.
>>>
>>> -------
>>>
>>> As for the *relations* *between labels within the same language*, we
>>> propose to talk about “term variation”.  For example:  what is the
>>> difference between Advertising and Publicity, if any? And between
>>> Contamination and Pollution?, or between Assisted conception, Artificial
>>> insemination and in vitro Fertilization? In a SKOS Thesaurus, Assisted
>>> conception is the main label, and the rest are alternative labels. However,
>>> we think that we could be more specific regarding the type of variants
>>> pointing to one and the same concept in the ontology, and that this should
>>> be accounted for in our ontology-lexicon model. Sometimes, the difference
>>> is a consequence of the contextual (pragmatic) usage, and we have to decide
>>> whether to represent this in our model.
>>>
>>> Based on previous classifications of terminology variation, we have
>>> identified three main groups of term variants that include the following
>>> types (see also [1] and [2]):
>>>
>>> *Group 1*. Synomyms or terminological units that totally correspond to
>>> the same concept:
>>>
>>>    - graphical and orthographical variants (*localization *and*localisation
>>>    *);
>>>    - inflectional variants (*cat* and *cats*);
>>>    - morphosyntactic variants (*nitrogen fixation* and *fixation of
>>>    nitrogen*).
>>>
>>> *Group 2*. Partial synonyms or terminological units that highlight
>>> different aspects of the same concept:
>>>
>>>    - stylistic or connotative variants (*man* and *bloke*)
>>>    - diachronic variants (*tuberculosis* and *phthisis*)
>>>    - dialectal variants (*gasoline* vs. *petrol*)
>>>    - pragmatic or register variants (*headache* and *cephalalgia*; *swine
>>>    flu* and *pig flu* and *H1N1* and *Mexic pandemic flu*)
>>>    - explicative variants (*immigration law* and *law for regulating
>>>    and controlling immigration*)
>>>
>>> So, we would be very grateful for your suggestions and comments on this
>>> proposal.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Lupe and Elena
>>>
>>> [1] Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Aguado de Cea, G., McCrae, J. (2011).
>>> Representing term variation in *lemon*. In Proceedings of the *WS
>>> 2Ontology and lexicon: new insights, TIA 2011 - 9th International
>>> Conference on Terminology and Artificial Intelligence*, pp. 47–50.
>>>
>>> [2] Aguado de Cea, G., and Montiel-Ponsoda, E. (2012).  Term variants in
>>> ontologies. In Proceedings of the AESLA (*Asociación Española de
>>> Lingüística Aplicada*) Conference.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  2012/7/18 Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>  and just to clarify what the description of the requirements should
>>>> include:
>>>>
>>>> Under "Description", there should be a general description of the
>>>> requirement, its implications, etc. It is important that we think here in
>>>> terms of requirements on the general model, not on particular data
>>>> categories, properties, etc. but on requirements at the meta-model level.
>>>>
>>>> Under "Relevant Use Cases": here we should just list the IDs of the use
>>>> cases touched by this requirement. Maybe this should be called "Affected
>>>> Use Cases" ???
>>>>
>>>> "Relation to Use Case": here we should give detailed examples from the
>>>> use cases where the requirement is important, thus grounding our
>>>> requirements in the use cases we have collected.
>>>>
>>>> If there are any questions on this, just shoot.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Philipp.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 18.07.12 14:24, schrieb Philipp Cimiano:
>>>>
>>>>  Dear ontolex members,
>>>>>
>>>>>  during our last meeting on the 6th of July, we discussed my condensed
>>>>> list of requirements on the model and agreed that it looks promising to
>>>>> work on the basis of these from now on.
>>>>>
>>>>> See here:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements
>>>>>
>>>>> The older list of unstructured requirements is linked from the bottom
>>>>> of the page.
>>>>>
>>>>> We fixed the following responsibles to produce a first draft of the
>>>>> requirement and kick-off the discussions on this mailinglist. (We really
>>>>> need to start the discussion on the relevant issues!)
>>>>>
>>>>> - Express Meaning with respect to ontology: John/Philipp/Aldo/Guido
>>>>> - Lexical Variation and Paraphrases: Philipp
>>>>> - Relation between lexical entries: Lupe/Elena
>>>>> - Lexical and linguistic properties of lexical entries: John/Philipp
>>>>> - Valence and Ontological Mapping: John/Philipp
>>>>> - High-Order Predicate Mapping: John/Philipp
>>>>> - Lexico-Syntactic Patterns: Elena/Dagmar
>>>>> - Metadata about lexicon: Armando
>>>>> - Modelling lexical resources: John/Aldo
>>>>>
>>>>> The goal would be to have a detailed specification and an ongoing
>>>>> discussion on this mailinglist by end of August.
>>>>>
>>>>> The next teleconference will be on September 6th, 15:00 - 17:00 (CET).
>>>>> It will be two hours as we decided to skip the one in August due to holiday
>>>>> period.
>>>>>
>>>>> We also decided to have biweekly teleconferences from September on. I
>>>>> think it is important to keep things moving quickly. Otherwise I have the
>>>>> feeling that not much happens in between our monthly teleconferences.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am now on holidays for two weeks and will then start working on the
>>>>> requirements assigned to me.
>>>>> Needless to say, everyone should feel free to start working on their
>>>>> requirements as soon as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think that an important requirement is missing, please post it
>>>>> on the list and we will discuss it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Philipp.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
>>>> Semantic Computing Group
>>>> Excellence Cluster - Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
>>>> University of Bielefeld
>>>>
>>>> Phone: +49 521 106 12249 <%2B49%20521%20106%2012249>
>>>> Fax: +49 521 106 12412 <%2B49%20521%20106%2012412>
>>>> Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>>>>
>>>> Room H-127
>>>> Morgenbreede 39
>>>> 33615 Bielefeld
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>> Room H-127
>> Morgenbreede 39
>> 33615 Bielefeld
>>
>>
>