Re: summary of state-of-play

For me it's ok to keep them disjoint, as soon as both are subclasses of semio:Meaning.
Aldo

On Jun 28, 2013, at 1:02:51 PM , John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:

> Hi Aldo,
> 
> I see that it is possible to consider that the lexical sense are a subclass of lexical concepts, which are indivisible, I don't think it will be good from a practical point of view. Firstly, it means that every annotation we can make on lexical concepts we can also make on lexical sense, but I would be keen to avoid this so we can clearly state when we can use lexical-invariant relationships like meronymy as opposed to lexical-dependent relationships such as register.
> 
> I also think that keeping this disjunction makes more sense in relationship to OWL, where it is also clear that individuals, and the class of one individual are considered disjoint. Similarly, type systems for programming languages would also have the X ⋢ Set<X>, thus it seems that it would be more understandable to most users to keep to this familiar disjointness.
> 
> Regards,
> John
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear John, I simply assumed the "subsumes" relation as the inverse of subClassOf, as with the typical meaning of subsumption. In that case, LexicalSense and LexicalConcept cannot be disjoint.
> 
> Now, you're pointing to a different requirement, i.e. that the meaning of one word (a word sense) is inherently different from the meaning of an equivalence class (not just a collection) of words (a synset). 
> However, I do not see any reason for disjointness. A lexical sense can be easily seen as an extreme case of a lexical concept, where the equivalence class is constituted just by one word (actually a lemma). 
> In this way, the axiom <LexicalSense subClassOf LexicalConcept> is perfectly valid, as well as the derivative axiom <sense subPropertyOf evokes>.
> 
> I think this view simplifies the model, but if you have counterexamples or conflicting requirements, please let's discuss it.
> 
> Aldo
> 
> On Jun 25, 2013, at 6:35:58 PM , John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Quickly I agree that the commits to should be pointed from the concept to the ontology.
>> 
>> Aldo suggests that "sense" is a subproperty of "evokes"... I am puzzled as this would lead to a contradictory ontology as the range of "sense" is LexicalSense and the "range" of "evokes" is LexicalConcept, but LexicalSense and LexicalConcepts should be disjoint as a LexicalSense is a particular meaning of a single word, where as LexicalConcept is the meaning of a collection of words (i.e., a synset). We should avoid creating any confusion between lexical sense and lexical concepts as they are quite different objects with different roles in the lexicon-ontology model.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> John
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear all, "ontological commitment" means that someone commits to the existence (in some universe of discourse) of certain entities whose type is given by a name. Therefore I agree with Guido here: if we have to use "commits to", the direction should be reversed.
>> On the other hand, the notion is quite controversial and laden with philosophical debates about ways to establish the actual existence of committed entities, and I suggest we ignore it here.
>> I'd just delete it: the "reference" relation is enough I guess, and can be assumed to hold between any kind of intensional entity and (extensionally seen) ontology entities.
>> 
>> One more thing: we probably need to make "sense" a subproperty of "evokes".
>> 
>> Aldo
>> 
>> sent by aldo from a mobile
>> 
>> On 25/giu/2013, at 17:19, Guido Vetere <gvetere@it.ibm.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Philipp, 
>>> 
>>> In my view (but we may ask) Guarino et al (following Quine) talk of the specification of the commitment for a vocabulary of predicates, which are substantially logic-linguistic symbols (as is in the tradition of analytic philosophy). According to authors, such a vocabulary comes with an implicit ontology, but due to polysemy, vagueness, etc, of the linguistic rendering, the intended models of such vocabularies should be (case by case) specified by a set of suitable constraints. The specification of such constraints is what they refer to as the 'formalization of an ontological commitment'. 
>>> 
>>> Now, I think that in Guarino's work, Ontology Entity and Lexical Concept are melted together in the logic vocabulary, so we cannot draw a clear conclusion from  there. If I had to choose a direction for 'commitsTo' between Ontology Entity, Lexical Concept, I would say that a Lexical Concept commits to an Ontology Entity. The other way around wouldn't make sense to me. 
>>> 
>>> Regards, 
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> _________________________________________________ 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
>>> 25/06/2013 15:43
>>> 
>>> To
>>> Guido Vetere/Italy/IBM@IBMIT
>>> cc
>>> public-ontolex@w3.org
>>> Subject
>>> Re: summary of state-of-play
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Guido, all,
>>> 
>>> in his 1994 AAAI Paper (http://www.mit.bme.hu/system/iles/oktatas/targyak/7412/Formalizing_Ontological_Commitments.pdf) Guarino talks about " an ontological commitment for L" where L is a logical language. For me, it thus seems natural to see the ontological commitment as a "property" of language L. Under this view, it is the vocabulary that is in the domain of the commitsTo property and the "conceptual relation" is in the range. 
>>> 
>>> But of course this is quite arbitrary. We need to define it properly I agree.
>>> 
>>> See below...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am 25.06.13 15:30, schrieb Guido Vetere: 
>>> Philipp, 
>>> 
>>> If I remember well, the notion of 'ontological commitment' is also known in Quine's philosophy, denoting the kind of thing that must exist in order for an expression to denote something.  If this is also our notion, then I think that the arrow should lead from the lexical class to the ontological one, not the other way around. 
>>> 
>>> Some question about the model. 
>>> 
>>> Is 'denotes' equivalent to sense°reference? If yes, it should be noted somehow. 
>>> 
>>> Yes 
>>> 
>>> The relation 'subsumes' is obscure to me: is it the inverse of is-a? 
>>> 
>>> No, it means that a particular lexical concept (e.g. a synset) subsumes or includes the particular sense of a word. If you have a better way of naming this, please say so! I feel we do not yet have the ideal name for it. For example, a synset (as a lexical concept) includes not really a word, but a sense of a word. 
>>> Is 'evokes' (whatever it means) related to sense°inverse-of-subsumes? 
>>> 
>>> Yes, it is equivalent to sense o inverse-of-subsumes 
>>> 
>>> Thank you and apologize if the answer is already there .. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards, 
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> _________________________________________________ 
>>> 
>>> Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
>>> 25/06/2013 15:04
>>> 
>>> 
>>> To
>>> public-ontolex@w3.org
>>> cc
>>> Subject
>>> Re: summary of state-of-play
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Elena, all,
>>> 
>>> well, I used "commitsTo" in the sense of Guarino in order to say that a certain symbol in an ontological vocabulary refers to (commits to) some conceptual relation in a conceptualization, the conceptualization being essentially "intensional" and not directly accessible (e.g. in the head of someone, implicit in a certain community).
>>> 
>>> I used commitTo to avoid using again something like "reference" which would otherwise become quite overloaded.
>>> 
>>> Aldo can elaborate on this much more than me, but I hope the intuition behind using commitsTo is clear now.
>>> 
>>> Along these lines, commitsTo can also be established between an ontological entity (extensional) and a skos:Concept (intensional)
>>> 
>>> But I agree with Aldo that skos:Concept is the more general class and that skos:Concepts need not be lexicalized. Under this understanding ontolex:LexicalConcept is a subclass of skos:Concept in the sense of being a special skos:Concept that is lexicalized.
>>> 
>>> Hope this clarifies my intuitions.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Philipp.
>>> 
>>> Am 25.06.13 13:40, schrieb Aldo Gangemi: 
>>> Hi Elena, 
>>> 
>>> On Jun 25, 2013, at 1:19:49 PM , Elena Montiel Ponsoda <elemontiel@gmail.com> wrote: 
>>> 
>>> Dear Philipp, all,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the "state-of-play" document and the summary of the document at http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Core_Model 
>>> 
>>> I just went through it and in general I agree with the model proposed. 
>>> I have two comments that we may discuss on Friday.
>>> what is the meaning of the "commitsTo" relation? Could it also be established between an OntologyEntity and a skos:Concept?
>>> I am not sure I fully understand the relation between LexicalConcept and skos:Concept (sorry if you already discussed it!!). Wouldn't a LexicalConcept be also subsuming a skos:Concept? I think a LexicalConcept is somehow more general, am I mistaken?
>>> Quickly: I think not. SKOS is very general and includes all sorts of concepts, be them lexical or not. 
>>> Aldo 
>>> Talk to you on Friday!
>>> Elena 
>>> 
>>> El 21/06/2013 15:30, Philipp Cimiano escribió: 
>>> Dear all, 
>>> 
>>> we had a very short meeting today. Apologies for the very late announcement on my side. I will announce the meeting earlier next week. 
>>> 
>>> In any case, we agreed that it is good that the model as it stands can accomodate both the view of Frames as Extensional Entitites / Class (i.e. sets of situations) and the view as intensional/cognitive Lexical Concepts. 
>>> 
>>> I feel that we need not to adopt any strong position towards any of these ends as FrameNet has been anyway modelled by different people in OWL/RDF already (Aldo, Alessandro, etc.) and it is certainly not the main use of the ontolex model. 
>>> 
>>> In any case, the (short) minutes from today are here: http://www.w3.org/2013/06/21-ontolex-minutes.html 
>>> 
>>> We will talk again next week at the usual time slot. 
>>> 
>>> Please all read my document and inspect the OWL ontology. We will decide on this core very soon ;-) 
>>> 
>>> Have a good weekend, 
>>> 
>>> Philipp. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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
>>> Tel. (+34) 91 336 36 70
>>> Fax  (+34) 91 352 48 19 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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 
>>> 
>>> 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) 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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 
>>> 
>>> 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)
>> 
> 
>