Re: lexicalization count

Armando, all,

  yes that would be ok from my point of view.

// counting properties (datatype properties, with domain 
(ontolex:Lexicon OR ontolex:Lexicalization OR void:Dataset OR 
lime:LanguageCoverage)

lime:numberOfLexicalEntries
lime:numberOfSenses
lime:numberOfLexicalizations (denote-tirples)
lime:numberOfReferences -> the number of distinct references used

We then need to discuss whether we should also include ratios etc.


Then:

lime:language (unified with ontolex:language, extended here to domain 
lime:LanguageCoverage

lime:linguisticModel: describing by which model/vocabulary information 
about lexicalization is attached; the domain is void:Dataset and the 
range is the URI of the vocabulary; lime:linguisticModel is thus a 
subproperty of void:vocabulary

Note that several linguisticModels can co-exist in principle in a dataset...

lime:type: providing a type for the resource in question, e.g. bilingual 
lexicon, lexicon, ..., domain is void:Dataset and range is not specified

lime:languageCoverage with domain void:Datase and range 
lime:LanguageCoverage.

lime:LanguageCoverage has a language, a linguistic Model and all the 
counting properties above are defined for it.

If this is a base model we can agree upon then I will update the wiki 
description and the ontology.

Let me know your comments on this.

Regards,

Philipp.

Am 23.05.14 13:49, schrieb Armando Stellato:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Just copied and pasted from our Ontolex-Lime proposal , an open 
> discussion about the lexicalizations count (which is not about them be 
> ratios or integers :P ).
>
>
>     6. Lexicalization core triples: senses or what?
>
> Senses act as reifications of the relationships between LexicalEntries 
> and Conceptual Entities (be them LexicalConcepts or entities of the 
> lexicalized ontology). In effect, a single sense is always 1-1 (it 
> links a single Lexical Entry with a single Conceptual Entity)
>
> The ontolex model has a shortcut for the relationship (mediated by 
> senses) between LexicalEntries and LexicalConcept: ontolex:denotes.
>
> We would propose to formally consider the number of "denotes triples" 
> (triples with predicate == ontolex:denotes) to obtain the count. 
> Obviously, this information may not always be available (not explicit 
> nor inferred), though the detail of how to obtain this are just 
> technicalities.
>
> [added wrt the proposal] So, in shorter words, we propose to formally 
> count "lexicalizations" as the number of ontoresource <--> 
> lexicalEntry links, and not as the number of (linked) senses.
>
> To support our claim, please note the following case:
>
> 1.a lexicon exists (independently of an ontology), with sense 
> descriptions for its lexical entries,andwith one lexical entry having 
> two very close senses (two smooth variations of a broad meaning)
>
> 2.the lexicon is used to lexicalize an ontology
>
> 3.the authors of the Lexicalization decide to collapse the two senses 
> into the same ontology concept
>
> 4.the two triples connecting the two similar senses to the same 
> ontology concept entail the same ontolex:denotes triple
>
> 5.to the purpose of counting the lexicalizations of that lexical 
> concept, the single triple count on ontolex:denotes is more 
> appropriate than counting the two senses of a same LexicalEntry linked 
> to the same concept.
>
> Would that be ok?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Armando
>


-- 

Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano

Phone: +49 521 106 12249
Fax: +49 521 106 12412
Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de

Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS)
Raum 2.307
Universität Bielefeld
Inspiration 1
33619 Bielefeld