W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ontolex@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Next Ontolex Meeting, tomorrow, Feb 22, 12:00

From: Paul Buitelaar <paul.buitelaar@deri.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:48:24 +0000
Message-ID: <51273EE8.1080305@deri.org>
To: John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
CC: public-ontolex@w3.org
On 21/02/2013 18:04, John McCrae wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In lemon we have previously said that lexica are monolingual to avoid
> having to repeat the language for each entry.

ok - we will adhere to that and change the examples

> I did find something that really puzzled me:
>
> :left upper lobe posterior segment artery:decomposition (
>      [ lemon:element :artery ]
>      [ lemon:element :left upper lobe artery ]
>      [ lemon:element :posterior segment artery ] ) .
>
> According to the existing /lemon/ documentation we use decomposition to
> indicate tokenization or decompounding... hence you are saying the
> tokenization of "left upper lobe posterior segment arterty" is
> ["artery","left upper lobe artery","posterior segment artery"]. I'm
> pretty sure what you mean to use is the subterm property as we have
> already discussed several times.

yes, this is a mistake - we will chnage using subterms with 'artery', 
'left upper lobe', 'posterior segment'

> However I am still puzzled as to what you are attempting to represent in
> the lexicon. These terms have clear subclass or partOf relations that
> can be represented in the ontology, which is clearly of use. However the
> lexical relationships are fairly trivial and could be easily constructed
> by examining the tokenization of each of these terms. I guess you want
> to represent that
>
> X Y artery = X artery + Y artery

yes correct - let's discuss how to best represent this (perhaps better 
offline)


Paul

> On the lexical layer, this is trivial... we need only compare the
> lexical entries of the tokens to establish this. A single property makes
> this more explicit (and hence easier to query), but I don't feel there
> would be any need for extra modelling beyond the standard syntactic
> analysis of lexical entries, as such relationships are easy to infer.
>
> On the ontological layer, we have that XYArtery = XArtery ∏ YArtery,
> which can be represented in OWL
>
> My only guess is that you want to do some sense level mapping X Y artery
> uses the words "X" exactly as "X artery" does (i.e., with the same
> sense) and "Y" exactly as "Y artery" does. For this the modelling would
> be complex and I don't clearly see the application, perhaps you could
> elucidate?
>
> Regards,
> John
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Paul Buitelaar <paul.buitelaar@deri.org
> <mailto:paul.buitelaar@deri.org>> wrote:
>
>     On 21/02/2013 16:07, Philipp Cimiano wrote:
>
>         And you do not need to repeat n times that the lexicon is English:
>
>
>     that answers my question - i.e. if we mix lexical entries from
>     different languages then we need to add the language ID for each
>     entry - if not then not as the language ID will be a metadatum on
>     the lexicon
>
>
>
>         :lexicon lemon:entry :left ;
>                  lemon:language "en" .
>
>         :lexicon lemon:entry :upper ;
>                  lemon:language "en" .
>
>         :lexicon lemon:entry :lobe ;
>                  lemon:language "en" .
>
>         :lexicon lemon:entry :posterior ;
>                  lemon:language "en" .
>
>         :lexicon lemon:entry :segment ;
>                  lemon:language "en" .
>
>         :lexicon lemon:entry :artery
>                  lemon:language "en" .
>
>         ;-)
>
>
>
>
>         Am 21.02.13 16:55, schrieb Paul Buitelaar:
>
>             Hi Philipp, we added lemon RDF to the examples on
>
>             http://www.w3.org/community/__ontolex/wiki/Specification_of___Requirements_on___Terminological_Analysis
>             <http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements_on_Terminological_Analysis>
>
>
>             Cheers
>
>
>             Paul
>
>             On 21/02/2013 07:28, Philipp Cimiano wrote:
>
>                 Dear all,
>
>                 this is to inform you that tomorrow we will have our
>                 regular ontolex
>                   teleconference.
>
>                 We will continue our discussion of particular examples,
>                 in particular
>                   looking at the contributions here:
>
>                 http://www.w3.org/community/__ontolex/wiki/Specification_of___Requirements/Lexicon-Ontology-__Mapping
>                 <http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Lexicon-Ontology-Mapping>
>
>
>
>
>                 http://www.w3.org/community/__ontolex/wiki/Specification_of___Requirements_on___Terminological_Analysis
>                 <http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements_on_Terminological_Analysis>
>
>
>
>
>                 http://www.w3.org/community/__ontolex/wiki/Specification_of___Requirements/Properties-and-__Relations-of-Entries
>                 <http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Properties-and-Relations-of-Entries>
>
>
>
>
>                 Paul/Mihael: I do not see any RDF examples in the wiki
>                 yet, will you
>                   manage to work them out until tomorrow?
>
>                 Elena/Lupe: same for you, I do not see any RDF examples
>                 in the wiki
>                 yet
>
>                 John: you wanted to work out how to represent Lexical
>                 Nets* in lemon,
>                   with WordNet as an example; can you please provide
>                 some RDF code for
>                 this?
>
>                  From then on, I would discuss how to i) model
>                 lexico-syntactic
>                 patterns (Dagmar: are you going to be there?) and ii)
>                 how to link
>                 entries across resources. We could start with Framenet /
>                 Verbnet for
>                 example, then showing how they can be used within a
>                 lemon lexical
>                 entry. Linking to wiktionary could be also considered as
>                 well as to
>                 ISOCAT.
>
>                 Another issue will be to look at modelling
>                 terminological resources
>                 in the lexicon-ontology model.
>
>                 Thanks to everybody. We have to get concrete and produce
>                 some (draft
>                 of a) spec this year ;-)
>
>                 Philipp.
>
>
>
>
>
>         --
>         Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
>         Semantic Computing Group
>         Excellence Cluster - Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
>         University of Bielefeld
>
>         Phone: +49 521 106 12249 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249>
>         Fax: +49 521 106 12412 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012412>
>         Mail:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-__bielefeld.de
>         <mailto:Mail%3Acimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
>
>         Room H-127
>         Morgenbreede 39
>         33615 Bielefeld
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 22 February 2013 09:49:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 February 2013 09:49:12 GMT