Re: R: telco tomorrow, 15:00 CET, random talk

I'd go (again) for not overcomplicating the model: ontolex:reference should be applicable to ow:Ontology as a whole (which is, in my opinion, an elegant solution too).

Alessandro
On Jul 13, 2013, at 8:03 PM, Armando Stellato wrote:

> Hi Aldo,
> 
> Thanks a lot for the clarification! Well, to me, it really makes sense that ontolex:reference can be applicable to owl:Ontology in the same way as to any ontology entity. I would really avoid any complexification for this. After all, the (be it formally specified or not) range of obtolex:reference already includes classes, properties, skos concepts...why not ontologies too? :)
> Da: Aldo Gangemi
> Inviato: ‎13/‎07/‎2013 23.40
> A: Armando Stellato
> Cc: Aldo Gangemi; 'QUATTRI, Francesca [11901993r]'; 'Philipp Cimiano'; 'John McCrae'; public-ontolex@w3.org
> Oggetto: Re: telco tomorrow, 15:00 CET, random talk
> 
> I am thinking about the relation between a sense and an entire (typically small) ontology that formalizes a gloss. In that use case, no specific ontology element is the ontolex:reference of the sense, but the whole ontology is (remember that owl:Ontology is an OWL primitive). 
> If we accept that ontolex:reference can also hold for ontologies (not only for ontology entities), fine, otherwise we have to think about another relation.
> Aldo
> 
> On Jul 12, 2013, at 11:34:36 PM , "Armando Stellato" <stellato@info.uniroma2.it> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Aldo. I was thinking about that too (in terms of "is it the case to think
> > of some axiom for bringing a lexicon glosses automatically to the
> > ontology?"), though actually I'm not sure if I understood the exact property
> > you are speaking about.
> > Currently, we already have a property for linking senses directly to
> > ontology entities (ontolex:reference).
> > So maybe you were considering having a direct link from glosses of the
> > senses to the ontology elements ontolex:referenced by these senses? ...and
> > in case, having it automatically inferred through an axiom?
> > 
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Aldo Gangemi [mailto:aldo.gangemi@cnr.it]
> >> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 8:27 PM
> >> To: Armando Stellato
> >> Cc: Aldo Gangemi; 'QUATTRI, Francesca [11901993r]'; 'Philipp Cimiano';
> > 'John
> >> McCrae'; public-ontolex@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: telco tomorrow, 15:00 CET, random talk
> >> 
> >> Hi all, sorry for today.
> >> This is interesting; actually sometimes I pointed out that glosses are
> > actually
> >> senses, though expressed verbosely and not with clear cut identifiers.
> >> 
> >> Anyway, when representing the structure of a traditional dictionary, we
> > need to
> >> create identifiers for different senses of a lemma, and at that point, the
> > gloss
> >> can be attached to sense identifiers through the gloss datatype property.
> >> 
> >> Once we have that, gloss analysis can be conducted, and a formal
> > definition
> >> can be extracted that makes it explicit the ontology attached to the
> > sense.
> >> 
> >> In such extensions (e.g. Mihalcea's or Hovy's gloss formalizations, or
> > Tìpalo-
> >> FRED RDFization of Wikipedia definitions), a special relation could link
> > the
> >> sense (with its gloss) to the ontology formalizing it. Should such a
> > relation
> >> should be considered in OntoLex, or left to possible extensions?
> >> 
> >> Ciao
> >> Aldo
> >> 
> >> On Jul 12, 2013, at 4:51:21 PM , "Armando Stellato"
> >> <stellato@info.uniroma2.it> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Hi Francesca,
> >>> 
> >>> in replying to Guido - who was advocating the possibility of linking
> >>> glosses to different entries (LexicalSenses, or LexicalConcepts) - I
> >>> said: "you are right Guido, as there are lexical resources which have
> >>> no notion of LexicalConcept, think about Dictionaries (either
> >>> bilingual or monolingual) which just have entries, and sense-separated
> >>> descriptions, which may contain morphological variations, synonyms
> >>> (translations for bilingual dictionaries), glosses etc..". Thus in
> >>> Dictionaries, there are just lexical entries, and their descriptions
> >>> which are sense-separated, but there is no gluing object for senses.
> >>> There is even no guarantee that two senses of two lexical entries,
> >>> which ideally collapse into a same meaning (LexicalConcept), have the
> >>> same gloss, because these are handled separately in the descriptions
> >>> of the two lexical entries (though, hopefully, the two glosses will
> >>> provide very similar descriptions :-) ). For these resources, IF we
> >>> want to represent them, there is no choice but allowing for glosses to
> > be
> >> attached to LexicalSenses.
> >>> 
> >>> My suggestion was to use the metadata, to understand which kind of
> >>> lexical resource we are dealing with, and thus know in advance where
> >>> the glosses (if
> >>> any) are attached to.
> >>> 
> >>> Best,
> >>> 
> >>> Armando
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: QUATTRI, Francesca [11901993r]
> >>>> [mailto:francesca.quattri@connect.polyu.hk]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 3:47 PM
> >>>> To: Philipp Cimiano
> >>>> Cc: John McCrae; Aldo Gangemi; public-ontolex@w3.org
> >>>> Subject: RE: telco tomorrow, 15:00 CET, random talk
> >>>> 
> >>>> To keep up with tonight's discussion:
> >>>> 
> >>>> I agree with Guido's note on different meanings for a same lexical
> > entry:
> >>> This
> >>>> occurs in one language and of course particularly across languages: I
> >>>> have
> >>> no
> >>>> practical reference for Guido's example "dog-Hund", but for instance
> >>>> the Chinese entry of 'dog' should include, apart from "domesticated
> >>>> animal", "edible animal", since dogs are commonly eaten.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Citing Armando: "Sometimes senses are not factorized on the WN
> >>>> glosses" -
> >>> if I
> >>>> got it right, can you give us an example?
> >>>> 
> >>>> F.
> >>>> ________________________________________
> >>>> From: QUATTRI, Francesca [11901993r]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 9:29 PM
> >>>> To: Philipp Cimiano
> >>>> Cc: John McCrae; Aldo Gangemi; public-ontolex@w3.org
> >>>> Subject: RE: telco tomorrow, 15:00 CET, random talk
> >>>> 
> >>>> Hi and sorry for the bad Skype connection.
> >>>> Here it comes again.
> >>>> F.
> >>>> ________________________________________
> >>>> From: QUATTRI, Francesca [11901993r]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 9:06 PM
> >>>> To: Philipp Cimiano
> >>>> Cc: John McCrae; Aldo Gangemi
> >>>> Subject: RE: telco tomorrow, 15:00 CET, random talk
> >>>> 
> >>>> Was playing around with the model. Thanks Philip for the example.
> >>>> Take the following as a random talk about the many implications or
> >>> extensions
> >>>> that can derive from it.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Let's assume sb is not looking for the French puddle, but starts from
> >>> 'dog' as
> >>>> point of discussion and tries to derive analogies across languages
> >>>> from
> >>> its
> >>>> inflections.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Let's assume we look for a mapping of 'dogged' (stubbornly
> >>>> relentless,
> >>>> persistent):
> >>>> we find similar concepts in other languages (perse2ve2rance,
> >>>> obstination
> >>> -fr;
> >>>> perseverante, ostinato -it; hartnaeckig, verbissen- de > interestingly:
> >>> verbissen
> >>>> from Biss - bite; hartnaeckig / probably from Nacken - back, lit.
> >>>> hard
> >>> back >
> >>>> similar expression in It: "avere le spalle forti" /lit. to have
> >>>> strong
> >>> shoulders)
> >>>> 
> >>>> Let's go for "to be dogged" (e.g. to be dogged by an illness) We have
> >>>> the concept of 'persecution' in at least four languages:
> >>>> *ser maltratado por/ser castigado por/ser perseguidado por (Sp)
> >>>> *verfolgt
> >>> von
> >>>> (Ge) (to be persecuted) *zhe2mo (persecution, torment)(Ch); wei3sui2
> > (lit.
> >>> "tail
> >>>> behind") versus the normal gou3 ("dog") *perseguitato, maltrattato
> >>>> (It)
> >>>> 
> >>>> Let's look for a collocation with the word, e.g. "to dog around":
> >>>> Here we
> >>> have at
> >>>> least two meanings.
> >>>> 1.to work hard 2. to cheat on sb (dogging, slang: a woman picking up
> >>>> men
> >>> at
> >>>> random)
> >>>> 
> >>>> if we go for adj. plus word (e.g. top dog), we also get another new
> >>> meaning (in
> >>>> this case: the leader or chief of a group). Interestingly, in German
> >>>> we
> >>> don't
> >>>> have the dog but the deer or stag to denote the concept (Platzhirsch).
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> ________________________________________
> >>>> From: Philipp Cimiano [cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 3:36 AM
> >>>> To: public-ontolex@w3.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: telco tomorrow, 15:00 CET
> >>>> 
> >>>> Sorry, I forgot the diagram with the example.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Apologies,
> >>>> 
> >>>> Philipp.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Am 11.07.13 21:33, schrieb Philipp Cimiano:
> >>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> John sent around a link to the current version of the model early
> >>>>> this
> >>>>> week:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/OntoLex_Core_Model
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I attach an illustrative example to this mail that shows how the
> >>>>> model would put into action. Hope this helps.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Tomorrow we will have our regular telco at 15:00 (CET).
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I will ask everyone on the telco to raise final issues with the model.
> >>>>> If there are no issues, we will then start the voting procedure
> >>>>> involving the whole list.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 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
> >>>> 
> >>>> Room H-127
> >>>> Morgenbreede 39
> >>>> 33615 Bielefeld
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> ------
> >>> ----------------------
> >>>> 
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> ------
> >>> ---
> >>>>       Disclaimer:
> >>>> 
> >>>> This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
> >>>> information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you
> >>>> are not the
> >>> intended
> >>>> recipient, you should delete this message and notify the sender and
> >>>> the University immediately. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution
> >>>> of this
> >>> message,
> >>>> or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited and
> >>>> may be unlawful.
> >>>> 
> >>>> The University specifically denies any responsibility for the
> >>>> accuracy or
> >>> quality
> >>>> of information obtained through University E-mail Facilities. Any
> >>>> views
> >>> and
> >>>> opinions expressed are only those of the author(s) and do not
> >>>> necessarily represent those of the University and the University
> >>>> accepts no liability whatsoever for any losses or damages incurred or
> >>>> caused to any party as a result of the use of such information.
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> > 
> 

Alessandro Oltramari
Research Associate
Psychology Department, Carnegie Mellon University
5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh PA 15213
Tel.:  +1-412-268-6284  Fax.: +1-412-268-2798     Mobile: +1-412-689-1514
Homepage: http://fms.psy.cmu.edu/member/aoltrama 
Twitter/Skype: oltramale 
"There’s no such thing as the unknown– only things temporarily hidden, temporarily not understood.” (Capt. J.T. Kirk)
"To dare is to lose one's footing momentarily. Not to dare is to lose oneself." (S. Kierkegaard)