Re: synsem module

Dear Philipp and list,

Thanks for the example, I will go through it this afternoon.

Francesca has told me she probably won't be able to make it tomorrow, but,
unexpected circumstances aside, I will be there.



Cheers,
Fahad


On 4 September 2014 14:04, Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
wrote:

>  Hi Fahad, Francesca, all,
>
>  I attach a new version of example10.ttl (see also GIT).
>
> I have tried to merge the proposals of Fahad/Francesca with my proposal at
> the same time trying to remain as compact as possible.
>
> It would be great if we could discuss this example at the telco tomorrow.
>
> In particular, I would like to know whether these is any information that
> was in your example (Fahad and Francesca) that is not in mine.
>
> I will send out access details for the telco in a few minutes.
>
> Talk to you tomorrow.
>
> Philipp.
>
> Am 29.08.14 11:35, schrieb Fahad Khan:
>
>  Hi everyone
>
> Here are a few responses to John and Philipp’s comments. Hopefully we can
> discuss these further in the call and afterwards in the list too. One thing
> I would like to point out at the start is that even though the emails are
> being sent out under my (Fahad’s) name and I’m doing the majority of the
> typing most of the work on the model is Francesca’s.  Hopefully in the
> call today most of the explanation will be her's too :)
>
> Our main motivation here is our resistance to stripping all semantics from
> the lexicon part especially with respect to the conversion of legacy
> resources. In principle we agree with a lot of John &  Philipp’s remarks
> that go in the direction of preserving semantics by reference. But it is
> difficult to see how this impacts us, as people who have a legacy resource
> (such as Parole Simple Clips) and want to use the ontolex model to publish
> it.
>
> Practically speaking we don’t know what to do with the PSC semantic layer.
> On the one hand Philip reminds us that Ontolex deals primarily with "given"
> ontologies. That leaves our semantic layer out. As you know we have tried
> to be faithful to the idea of semantics by reference in converting PSC
> using lemon; but we also wanted to publish all the semantics of PSC; this
> forced us to create a new ontological level to accommodate our semantic
> layer.
>
> But this to be honest is not really a well formed ontology, and can hardly
> be pointed to by other lexicons (other languages...) without a lot of
> manual checking. This is not what we want... we want ontologies that are
> reusable even independently from the original lexicon.
>
> Our concern is that people with a legacy resource, are just going to
> choose the easy way, use the "lexical" basics of the model, like the
> lexical entry, the canonical form.... and then add/define their semantic
> stuff on top of it, as an extension to the lexical model, that is without
> using "reference" to an ontology. Basically they'll add their semantic
> layer the way they want it.
>
> Nevertheless, for the sake of the argument, why don't we take a resource
> of some complexity and try to see how it accomodates in your best model in
> a way that is really faithful to the ontolex philosophy, and at the same
> time leaving as little information out as possible.
>
> We are thinking of completing Parole Simple Clips, as a test case for
> this, but it's a big beast. We have started to do this, but when you tackle
> the verbs and the predicates, it's even more complex. Maybe this will give
> us an idea of how much adjustment legacy resources would require to be
> faithful to the "semantics by reference"  model, and how reusable the stuff
> that ends up on the ontological side.
> Cheers,
> Fahad & Francesca
>
>
>
>  On 29 August 2014 08:34, Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
> > wrote:
>
>>  Dear Fahad, all,
>>
>>  I finally had the chance to look at your proposal in more detail, I
>> think it is more in line than we might expect at first sight with the
>> example that I provided a few weeks ago. I attach the example again for the
>> sake of easier reference. In particular, I think that:
>>
>> 1) The *PredicativeRepresentation*s you are proposing corresponds to the
>> *SemanticFrame*s that I was proposing. It sort of represents "the complex
>> predicate expressed by a lexical entry", where the atomic parts come from a
>> given ontology. Our proposals differ in that I was attaching the
>> SemanticFrames to the SyntacticBehaviour via the relation "semFrame", then
>> linking the frame to the sense. However, we can of course link the "sense"
>> to the Frame as you propose and then link the Frame to the corresponding
>> syntactic behaviour. Both are fine from my side. If you think your
>> modelling here is better, then I have no problem in endorsing it.
>>
>> 2) As John mentioned, our building assumption is that predicates per se
>> are *only* in the ontology. In this sense, the first decision to make is
>> whether sell and buy denote the same concept in the ontology (lemon and
>> myself are agnostic in this respect, this is a conceptual decision to
>> make). The different perspectives you mention could be modelled by the
>> SemanticFrame class that I was proposing, with different mappings between
>> syntactic and semantic arguments. Information about semantic roles can be
>> attached as annotations, that's not a problem. Further, the ontolex model
>> allows you to have two different senses for sell and buy that nevertheless
>> link to the same ontological class/predicate.
>>
>> 3) Note that ontolex was used to interface a lexicon with a given
>> (domain) ontology, not a linguistic ontology. Agent / Themes / Beneficiary
>> are linguistic roles rather than roles/relations that would appear in a
>> (domain) ontology. As John mentions we can attach these roles to the
>> syntactic arguments without a problem.
>>
>> Let's discuss this further today. I will then try to create a new example
>> that unifies both proposals, mine and Fahads.
>>
>> talk to you later,
>>
>> Philipp.
>>
>> Am 28.08.14 15:01, schrieb John P. McCrae:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Fahad Khan <anasfkhan81@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  Dear John,
>>>
>>>  Thanks for your comments.
>>>
>>>  We partly agree on your points, especially about the redundancy of
>>> some modules. We want to use this LMF style treatment as a starting point
>>> for further discussion.
>>>
>>>  As for the the use of reference for selectional preferences we can see
>>> your point (maybe instead we can use a different relation such as "domain"
>>> instead of "reference").
>>>
>>>  What we're still not sure about is the fact that predicates should
>>> only be in the ontology: where the ontology in this case represents the
>>> extensions of lexical items. The problem we have is that for example, one
>>> can understand the senses of "buy" and "sell" in this example to represent
>>> two different predicates but just one class of "actions" (e.g.,
>>> purchase_exchange_actions): where the predicate represents a different
>>> "linguistically" motivated way of looking at the same class of events.
>>>
>>>  If you want to make "buy" and "sell" one predicate as in the Ontolex
>>> example that was given earlier on, i see practical as well as theoretical
>>> problems. Practically, you force all those who have two predicates in their
>>> resource to go and check which should be merged.
>>>
>> The question of whether to model buy and sell as a single event or as two
>> events that entail each other is an interesting question in general, but it
>> is a conceptual modelling issue, rather than a lexical issue. As long as
>> the lexicon can capture how each entry interfaces with predicates defined
>> in the ontology, such details of the lexical modelling should not matter.
>> It is also unavoidable that when dealing with legacy resources, some work
>> will be needed to harmonize with any defined OntoLex model.
>>
>>>
>>>  Also, what about semantic role labeling? the first argument of the
>>> sell predicate is an agent according to PSC. So is the first argument of
>>> the buy predicate.  It is because the same action is conceptualized in
>>> different ways in language. But on the ontological level, these different
>>> roles point to the same participant in the action (eg. The buyer is
>>> beneficiary in one case and agent in another).
>>>
>>>  Overall it seems to us there exists information related to semantic
>>> predicates (as they are used in lexical resources we know) which seems to
>>> pertain more to word use, and to the linguistic rather than to the
>>> ontological level. But, we think this would a good matter for discussion.
>>>
>> Such linguistic features can be captured by annotations on the arguments
>> as required.
>>
>>>
>>>  As for the SynSemCorrespondence, indeed it is verbose to implement,
>>> but consider also that instead of having to laboriously map lots of
>>> individual cases of syntactic and semantic arguments you can just define a
>>> reified object that represents without redundancy a whole class of such
>>> mappings. For instance in Parole Simple Clips, you'd have thousands of
>>> instances all pointing to one class of mappings, such as IsoTrivalent, or
>>> IsoBivalent. The synsemcorrespondence object enables you to do this.
>>>
>> As I said, the merging of the syntactic and semantic arguments as
>> proposed by *lemon* is maximally efficient as it requires no extra
>> triples, it also has several other advantages, most notably it is easier to
>> query and work with.
>>
>>  Regards,
>>  John
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Cheers,
>>> Francesca + Fahad
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28 August 2014 12:19, John P. McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Hi Fahad, Francesca, all,
>>>>
>>>>  I will not be at the telco tomorrow due to being busy at Coling, but I
>>>> will provide some comments on the proposal
>>>>
>>>>    - 'Predicates' should not be included in the modelling of SynSem,
>>>>    as predicates are something clearly defined by the ontology. A duplicate
>>>>    mechanism for semantics is not needed in lemon/OntoLex as we have a good
>>>>    semantic model (OWL) in contrast to a pure lexicon model like LMF, which
>>>>    must define its own semantic model.
>>>>     - I still have no clue what a 'predicative representation' is...
>>>>    it seems entirely unnecessary in LMF, but perhaps I am wrong here?
>>>>     - Arguments cannot have references to an ontology, they represent
>>>>    slots that should be filled in the logical representation defined by the
>>>>    ontology. The proposal here seems to confuse references with domains (that
>>>>    is the class of object referenced by the argument rather than the actual
>>>>    values referred to by the argument, when the frame is realized).
>>>>     - The SynSemCorrespondence object from LMF is frankly verbose and
>>>>    unnecessarily so, it occupies 14 triples in your proposal, where as direct
>>>>    linking of semantic and syntactic arguments would take only 3 triples, and
>>>>    URI reuse as in *lemon* requires 0 triples! Is there any
>>>>    justification for this complex and verbose modelling?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Fahad Khan <anasfkhan81@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Philipp
>>>>>
>>>>>  We've tried to put our money where our mouth is so here is a rough
>>>>> and ready version in RDF of the buy/sell example  as well as a diagram of
>>>>> part of the example, as inspired by a more LMF type aproach:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dojqhFMHTswFWUarQAbeVo3ap6_UjDLyN9gTPydqr_g/edit
>>>>>
>>>>>  Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>>  Fahad & Francesca
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22 August 2014 10:37, Fahad Khan <anasfkhan81@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Philipp,
>>>>>> Sorry for the delay in responding,  we have been on holiday too the
>>>>>> last couple of weeks.  We were planning to send something to the list
>>>>>> before we went away, but it turns out the translation was harder to do than
>>>>>> we thought (and our collective knowledge of lmf less comprehensive) and we
>>>>>> weren't entirely happy with what we came up with.  However we will send you
>>>>>> a slightly polished version of our proposed example next week before the
>>>>>> telco -- after having hopefully discussed it with colleagues far more well
>>>>>> versed in lmf than us.
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Fahad and Francesca
>>>>>>   Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    I returned from holidays end of last week. Given that some people
>>>>>> are still on holidays, I propose we have our next telco on Friday 29th at
>>>>>> the regular slot, i.e. 15:00 (CET). I will send out an announcement soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Fahad and Francesca: regarding our email thread before the holidays,
>>>>>> would you please be so kind to send an example of the modelling of frames
>>>>>> that is in your view appropriate, an LMF document would be fine for now so
>>>>>> that we can study the LMF modelling in more detail in the next telco and
>>>>>> then propose appropriate vocabulary elements in the synsem module to do the
>>>>>> job. Starting from LMF seems a good idea to me as I mentione a few weeks
>>>>>> ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will continue working with the vartrans and metadata modules from
>>>>>> next week on until we receive the input form Fahad and Francesca to
>>>>>> continue the work on the synsem module.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I regard the ontolex and decomp modules as largely finished. Please
>>>>>> check the ontologies and examples carefully so that we can soon agree to
>>>>>> release them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking forward to continuing with our work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Philipp.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 02.08.14 18:46, schrieb Manuel Fiorelli:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Hi Philipp, All
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  sorry for the delayed response, which is in fact quite simple.  See
>>>>>> below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2014-08-01 11:53 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano <
>>>>>> cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 01.08.14 00:10, schrieb Manuel Fiorelli:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   My objection is that you split the description of the semantic
>>>>>>> frame into two blocks. In each block, you associated the frame with
>>>>>>> subframes, each one associating a semantic role with a syntactic argument.
>>>>>>> Having these two blocks, I can easily understand that the semantic frame
>>>>>>> has three roles, which maps to the syntactic arguments. Conversely, it I
>>>>>>> consider these two blocks together, as they are in reality, then I am not
>>>>>>> sure I can easily spot the "shape" of the semantic frame.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    Yes, that is the only objection I can see so far as well. Let's
>>>>>>> give a deeper look at this after the holidays, ok?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I used the word "objection", which is quite a strong word. Maybe
>>>>>> "observation" would have been a better choice. Nevertheless, I agree with
>>>>>> you that we can continue the discussion after the holidays.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Meanwhile, happy holidays to everybody listening to this thread,
>>>>>> and the rest of the OntoLex community :-D
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
>>>>>> AG Semantic Computing
>>>>>> Exzellenzcluster für Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
>>>>>> Universität Bielefeld
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tel: +49 521 106 12249
>>>>>> Fax: +49 521 106 6560
>>>>>> Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Office CITEC-2.307
>>>>>> Universitätsstr. 21-25
>>>>>> 33615 Bielefeld, NRW
>>>>>> Germany
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
>> AG Semantic Computing
>> Exzellenzcluster für Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
>> Universität Bielefeld
>>
>> Tel: +49 521 106 12249
>> Fax: +49 521 106 6560
>> Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>>
>> Office CITEC-2.307
>> Universitätsstr. 21-25
>> 33615 Bielefeld, NRW
>> Germany
>>
>>
>
> --
> --
> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
> AG Semantic Computing
> Exzellenzcluster für Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
> Universität Bielefeld
>
> Tel: +49 521 106 12249
> Fax: +49 521 106 6560
> Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>
> Office CITEC-2.307
> Universitätsstr. 21-25
> 33615 Bielefeld, NRW
> Germany
>
>