Re: semiotics.owl

Hi,

My understanding of Sinn and Bedeutung in relation to logical theorems is
that the terms of the formula are extensional and that the predicates are
intensional. In the context of OWL this would mean that classes and
properties are intensional and that individuals are extensional. In
particular I think this correlates with the difference that it is
informative to say

dbpedia:Influenza owl:sameAs icd:J10

But the use of owl:equivalentClass and owl:equivalentProperty are instead
to give definitions:

lexinfo:TransitiveFrame owl:equivalentClass [ ∃ subject.Argument ∏ ∃
directObject.Argument ]

Furthermore, classes are clearly more Sinn than Bedeutung as it is possible
to define an OWL class with no extension (i.e., that is equivalent to ⊥)

However it is quite justified to assume that all OWL classes are in fact
extensions over the set of OWL individuals, and perhaps this is the better
consensus understanding.

Firstly, can I be clear that what we refer to a sense in OntoLex has
generally not been 'Sinn' but as in the sense of WordNet, LMF, etc. as "a *
lexical* sense is all usages of a given word to express a concept". This is
clearly extensional and lexical.

To clarify this, in the sentence:

    "The internet is full of pictures of *cats*"

'cats' is in the extension of the lexical form for the plural of the lexeme
'cat'
'cats' is in the extension of the lexical entry for the lexeme 'cat'
'cats' is in the extension of the lexical sense for the usage of the lexeme
'cat' to refer to/express the species *felis catus*

That is the extension of a lexical sense is a set of words. The primary
reason for making this distinction is to allow for different levels of
annotations:

number=plural is a property of the lexical form 'cats'
partOfSpeech=noun is a property of the lexical entry 'cat'
register=neutral is a property of the lexical sense 'cat'/*felis catus*
*
*
>From this understanding I would conclude that in Aldo's model Lexical Form,
Entry *and* Sense are all in fact Expressions.
*
*
Returning to Sinn and Bedeutung, it seems clear that we could model
difference as link between the lexical sense and the ontology by means of
the following triangle

<cat> a ontolex:LexicalEntry ;
   ontolex:sense <cat::01> .

<cat::01> a ontolex:LexicalSense ;
   ontolex:expresses <Cat> ;
   ontolex:reference <FelisCatus> . % or ontolex:denotes

<Cat> a ontolex:Meaning % subclassOf skos:Concept ;
   ontolex:conceptualizes <FelisCatus> .

<FelisCatus> a owl:Class .

This introduces a new meaning class for the intension of Cat distinct from
the extensional (ontological) definition. Does this seem reasonable?

Regards,
John





On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it> wrote:

> Ciao Guido,
> I am with you (and John) in pointing at the intensional import of ontology
> concepts, but I think treating them as extensional objects seems more
> practical and cleaner, specially as a default assumption. Enumerated
> classes (aka "nominals") are no different under this respect, except that
> you have an explicit complete extension, which is not the case with regular
> classes due to open world assumption.
> It seems that hardly a KR language allows to talk about concepts as
> twofold entities, i.e. with a different identity for each aspect … OWL2
> punning does something, but only wrt reasoning, because the intensional and
> extensional aspects of a class are flattened on a same identifier.
> BTW, if in OntoLex we accept (as semiotics does) to use either sense or
> reference properties to talk about logical constants, we should be able to
> inject some limited form of duplicated interpretation, at least at the
> interface between ontologies and lexica.
>
> Concerning Frege, that is the most common interpretation, but I'm not sure
> everyone agrees. Interestingly, the translation of Bedeutung is usually
> "reference", and not "referent".
>
> Aldo
>
> On Apr 17, 2013, at 1:45:01 PM , Guido Vetere <gvetere@it.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> This looks like the classic distinction of Sinn vs Bedeutung (Frege),
> isn't it? If the range of 'referent' has to be intended extensionally
> (Bedeutung), then pointing a Meaning (Sinn) to an ontology concept should
> be better clarified, since ontology concept may still be intensional
> constructs, and in fact enumerated concepts like the one in John's example
> are not common in average ontologies.  I would say that the class supplied
> as 'referent' could be either intended as an extension (like in the
> example) or a constraint that a suitable interpretation must satisfy.
>
> Guido Vetere
> Manager, Center for Advanced Studies IBM Italia
> _________________________________________________
> Rome                                     Trento
> Via Sciangai 53                       Via Sommarive 18
> 00144 Roma, Italy                   38123 Povo in Trento
> +39 (0)6 59662137
>
> Mobile: +39 3357454658
> _________________________________________________
>
>
>  *Elena Montiel Ponsoda <elemontiel@gmail.com>*
>
> 17/04/2013 12:06
>   To
> public-ontolex@w3.org
> cc
>   Subject
> Re: semiotics.owl
>
>
>
>
> Hi Aldo, John, all,
>
> After reading Aldo's previous e-mail on "Re: Senses, synsets and ontology
> mapping in WordNet", I am not so sure I agree with the example provided by
> John in the wiki page, that is why I would like to ask you for
> clarification.
>
> Example: The term 'G8' expresses the OWL Class G8Countries and denotes
> the set {Canada,France,Germany,Italy,Japan,Russia,US,UK}, which is
> conceptualized by G8Countries
>
> I quote from Aldo's previous e-mail:
> Re (3):
> "
> This is not the case when we want to link lexical or KOS meanings to
> typical ontologies, e.g. to myont:Vomit class. If Vomit is an OWL (or RDFS)
> class, its interpretation is **extensional** (a collection of things,
> vomiting events in the common interpretation), therefore it's fully
> justified to use ontolex:reference for representing this linking.
> Therefore:
>                 wordnet:wordsense-vomit-verb-1 wordnet:inSynset
> wordnet:synset-vomit-verb-1
>                 wordnet:wordsense-vomit-verb-1 ontolex:reference
> myont:Vomit
>                 wordnet:synset-vomit-verb-1 ontolex:reference myont:Vomit
>
> "
> Aldo, if I understood this correctly, the *reference *relation would be
> established between the WordNet synset or *meaning *and an OWL class
> "myont:Vomit" in an ontology.
> Therefore,  the expression to vomit expresses the meaning (sense or
> synset) corresponding to that verb
>                    the meaning (sense or synset) conceptualizes an OWL (or
> RDFS) class
>
> If we extrapolate this to the G8 example, we would say that the expression
> G8 expresses the meaning of "a group of eight of the richest industrial
> countries in the world...", which, in its turn, conceptualizes the OWL
> Class G8Countries, that contains and denotes the set of countries
> {Canada,France,Germany,Italy,Japan,Russia,US,UK}, as instances.
>
> I would rather agree with this view, since I my interpretation of the
> semiotic triangle, the "Referent" corresponds to a conceptualization or
> ontology of a certain world.
> In fact, I think that if we assume this view, the
> LexicalEntry-Sense-OntologyClass path has more sense. Could you agree with
> this view?
>
> Best,
> Elena.
>
>
>
> El 16/04/2013 20:27, Aldo Gangemi escribió:
> Hi, John has made a nice summary of semiotics.owl, and some useful
> questions. John, thanks for the analysis :)
> Answers below.
>
> On Apr 16, 2013, at 6:45:53 PM , John McCrae <*
> jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de* <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote:
>
> Hi Aldo,
>
> I was trying to synthesize the semiotics.owl ontology you sent around. I
> made some notes here
> *
> **
> http://greententacle.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/~jmccrae/semiotics.owl.html*<http://greententacle.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/%7Ejmccrae/semiotics.owl.html>
>
> I had some things I didn't fully understand
>
> Naming of 'reference', looking at the comments it seems to be what is
> (from my experience) called a 'referent' in the semiotics literature. In
> fact, more confusingly some authors seem to use reference for meaning. I
> think this has confused a lot of the OntoLex discussion as in *lemon* we
> use reference as the term for the meaning in the ontology. (Honestly this
> is a total accident, it was originally chosen to harmonize with LMF's
> 'monolingual external reference', used to cite external resources for
> senses).
>
> I opted for "reference" because "referent" typically bears a realistic
> flavor in philosphical debates. Besides that, no problem in using
> "referent", as in the Ogden-Richards version of the triangle.
>
>
> What is a manifestation, it has no annotations?
>
> Right, I should add it. A Manifestation is the material occurrence of an
> Expression, e.g. Dante's Comedy (Expression) can be manifested in an eBook
> or a paper book. The same term with similar meaning is used in FRBR
> vocabulary.
>
>
> The model has linguistic (speech?) acts, I was wondering if there were any
> practical examples of how to model a speech act
>
> I'll add it, and yes, it's an event (type). Example: "Talleyrand said "Si
> cela va sans dire, cela ira encore mieux en le disant" during the Vienna
> Congress in 1814."
> That is the report of a linguistic act (a declarative speech act that
> reports another, subtler speech act), which can be modeled as follows (in
> Turtle, and using a default namespace ":" for a domain ontology, full
> example at *
> http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/example/talleyrandquotation.ttl*<http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/example/talleyrandquotation.ttl>
> ):
>
> :lingAct_1 a :Quote .
> :Quote rdfs:subClassOf semiotics:LinguisticAct .
> :lingAct_1 situation:isSettingFor _:agent .
> _:agent a agentrole:Agent .
> _:agent :authorOf "*http://dinoutoo.pagesperso-orange.fr/histo/tal1.htm*<http://dinoutoo.pagesperso-orange.fr/histo/tal1.htm>"^^xsd:anyURI
> .
> :lingAct_1 situation:isSettingFor :lingAct_2 .
> :lingAct_2 a :Say .
> :Say rdfs:subClassOf semiotics:LinguisticAct .
> :lingAct_2 situation:isSettingFor :Talleyrand .
> :Talleyrand a agentrole:Agent .
> :lingAct_2 situation:isSettingFor _:time .
> _:time :inDate "06-10-1814"^^xsd:date .
> :lingAct_2 situation:isSettingFor _:sentence .
> _:sentence a semiotics:Expression .
> _:sentence ontolex:lexicalForm "Si cela va sans dire, cela ira encore
> mieux en le disant"^^xsd:string .
> :lingAct_2 situation:isSettingFor _:meaning .
> _:meaning a semiotics:Meaning .
> :lingAct_2 situation:isSettingFor _:reference .
> _:reference a semiotics:Reference .
> _:reference :partOf :CongressOfVienna .
>
> if we know more about that quotation, we might add something more about
> _:meaning:
>
> _:meaning semiotics:relatedMeaning :Clarity .
> :Clarity a semiotics:Meaning .
> _:meaning :modality :needed .
> :needed a :Modality .
> _:meaning :inContext :InternationalTreaty .
> :InternationalTreaty a dbpedia:Event .
>
>
> Some unreferenced elements: agent, hasComponent... what is their purpose
> exactly?
>
> Those are actually references, but in other - imported - patterns (agent
> role, situation, cpannotationschema)
>
>
> Regards,
> John
>
> Aldo
>
>
> --
> Elena Montiel-Ponsoda
> Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
> Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
> Facultad de Informática
> Campus de Montegancedo s/n
> Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, España
> *www.oeg-upm.net* <http://www.oeg-upm.net/>
> Tel. (+34) 91 336 36 70
> Fax  (+34) 91 352 48 19
>
> 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)
>
>
>