- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 22:34:00 +0200
- To: Manuel Fiorelli <manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <55887138.7060706@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Hi Manuel, thanks for your comments.... see below... Am 09.06.15 um 14:56 schrieb Manuel Fiorelli: > Hi Philipp, All > > Here are my comments on the Synsem module. The comments on decomp will > follow in the next days. > > --- > > In the diagram, the association named "subframe" should be applied to > SemanticFrame rather than to sense. The same holds true for the > property condition. You are right for "subframe", but not for "condition", which is defined for LexicalSense as domain. > > --- > > In the wiki, it is mostly used the property name synBehaviour, despite > in the definition box it appears as synBehavior. In the ontology, the > property is named synBehavior with a label equal to "syntactic behaviour". > > I do not have a strict opinion on which orthography to use, but I am > surprised that the (human readable) name and the label use two > different orthographies. OK, thanks for noticing. I have now changed this consistently to "behavior" > > ---- > > Just above the definition box of synArg, there is the following sentence: > > "The object property synArg is used to relate a (syntactic) frame to > one of its (syntactic) arguments." > > I would avoid the use of parenthesis around the word syntactic, and > instead write "syntactic frame". Yes indeed, thanks. Someone had removed this already, not me ;-) > > ---- > > In the definition box of Class: Syntactic Argument and Class: > Syntactic Argument, should there be a superclass Argument? (at least > it is present in the ontology) > I added Argument... > ---- > > In the definition box of Class: Semantic Frame, the axiom should use > SemanticArgument instead of Argument > Fixed... > ----- > > Concerning Example synsem/example3, I would make it explicit the fact > that the binding between the syntactic and semantic arguments is > realized by unifying them. I added the following sentence below example 3: The above example clearly shows how syntactic and semantic arguments are bound in ontolex, that is by instantiating the syntactic and corresponding semantic argument with the same individual. This is mainly done for reasons of economy. Essentially, by this we avoid having to introduce a dedicated SynsemCorrespondence class as used in LMF to implement this binding. > > ------ > > > In Example synsem/example7, you use rdfs:subProperty, while the > correct one is rdfs:subPropertyOf. > > the the semantic argument giving_event seems unbound. Is this a case > in which we should use the property isA? > > ---- No not really, as the giving_event is not realized syntactically... > > I would expand the description of Example synsem/example8, to indicate > the function of synsem:isA. Also, if I am right on the previous point, > I think that there is a slight difference between the use of isA in > this example and its use in example 7. > I added the following sentence: Note that in the above example the property synsem:isA property is used to mark the single argument/variable of the class of all the things that have female gender. The copulative subject in an expression such as "Mary is female" is bound to this single semantic argument. The semantics is thus in essence the characteristic function that for each element x decides if x is in the set denoted by the class. Does this help? > ---- > > In the wiki you use "/X ∈ ∃inverse father.Thing"/. Although it is > probably a bad name, I would write a perhaps clearer "/X ∈ ∃ > fatherOf.Thing/". However, I am not sure. In principle yes, but we use the property "father" in example 4. For the sake of consistency I would stick to inverse father. > > ---- > > Do we want to add an example for symsem:isA? Maybe we can expand the > example in the table: > > Class Unary predicate City(x), ?x rdf:type dbpedia-owl:City > > --- Sure, any concrete proposal? > > If we want to represent an event verb, we can take the example from > the BIO ontology: > http://vocab.org/bio/0.1/.html#Graduation Good idea. I will think about it. Thanks > > 2015-06-09 7:20 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano > <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de > <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>>: > > Dear all (there were two crucial typos in my email from yesterday ;-) > > I have *now* completely *updated* the synsem and decomp modules > according to what we have discussed in the last three weeks. I > have synchronized the description in the wiki with the ontologies > and the examples. > > Here are a few todos: > > 1) All: please check that the points you have raised recently have > been considered to a satisfactory extent; let me know otherwise. > 2) Fahad: please check the new examples for the synsem module. Are > they better? > 3) Lupe/Elena/Manuel (not Armando): please check the examples in > the decomp section. Do they solve the issues we discussed? Let me > know please. > > John and me are still working on some specific examples... > > Kind regards, > > Philipp. > > Am 08.06.15 um 22:44 schrieb Philipp Cimiano: >> Dear all, >> >> I have not completely updates the synsem and decomp modules >> according to what we have discussed in the last three weeks. I >> have synchronized the description in the wiki with the ontologies >> and the examples. >> >> Here are a few todos: >> >> 1) All: please check the the points you have raised recently have >> been considered to a satisfactory extent; let me know otherwise. >> 2) Fahad: please check the new examples for the synsem module. >> Are they better? >> 3) Lupe/Elena/Armando: please check the examples in the decomp >> section. Do they solve the issues we discussed? Let me know please. >> >> John and me are still working on some specific examples... >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Philipp. >> >> Am 02.06.15 um 10:53 schrieb John P. McCrae: >>> Yes I think you are right, we should expand the description of >>> subterm as it is the preferred primary mechanism of relating terms >>> >>> Regards, >>> John >>> >>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Elena Montiel Ponsoda >>> <emontiel@fi.upm.es <mailto:emontiel@fi.upm.es>> wrote: >>> >>> Philipp, >>> >>> I know it is too late for this, but Lupe and I were having a >>> look at the model, and we are struck by the following doubt: >>> >>> What is the benefit of having the property subterm pointing >>> to another LexicalEntry? What is it that you can say with >>> that property that cannot be said with Components?? >>> In the paragraph below you talk about the limitations of >>> subterm, but you do not say what the benefits of having it >>> are, or what you can represent with that property that >>> cannot be represented by Components, etc. >>> >>> "The use of the property /subterm/ has two limitations. >>> First, we can not indicate inflectional properties of the >>> lexical entry when appearing as a subterm of another term. >>> Further and most importantly we can not indicate the order >>> of subterms within a compound lexical entry. For this, the >>> model defines the the class Component, which represents a >>> part of a lexical entry and allows to add additional >>> information describing the use of the lexical entry in a >>> compound. A component is declared as a subclass of >>> rdf:sequence as it can be understood as an ordered list of >>> sub-components." >>> >>> We think that an explanation on this sense is needed. >>> Talk to you in a minute! >>> >>> Best, >>> Elena. >>> >>> El 29/05/2015 a las 10:48, Philipp Cimiano escribió: >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> this is a gentle reminder for our telco on the >>>> decomposition module today at 16:00 CET. >>>> >>>> Access details can be found here: >>>> >>>> https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2015.5.29,_16-17_pm_CET >>>> >>>> >>>> I have added to the agenda all points raised by Manuel >>>> (thanks Manuel!). I have not received any other issues to >>>> discuss. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Philipp. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> -- >> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano >> AG Semantic Computing >> Exzellenzcluster für Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC) >> Universität Bielefeld >> >> Tel:+49 521 106 12249 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249> >> Fax:+49 521 106 6560 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%206560> >> Mail:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de <mailto: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 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249> > Fax:+49 521 106 6560 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%206560> > Mail:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> > > Office CITEC-2.307 > Universitätsstr. 21-25 > 33615 Bielefeld, NRW > Germany > > > > > -- > Manuel Fiorelli -- -- 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
Received on Monday, 22 June 2015 20:34:31 UTC