- From: Adam Pease <adampease@att.net>
- Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 19:43:38 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <899168851.42687.1441827818355.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Hi Folks, A colleague forwarded your messages to me. You can get relations that apply directly to a given relation by simply getting the statements involving that relation. For example, to see all the relations defined for Object, look at http://54.183.42.206:8080/sigma/Browse.jsp?kb=SUMO&lang=EnglishLanguage&flang=SUO-KIF&term=Object and then to the (domain... statements and you'll see
(domain anthem 2 Object)
(domain askPrice 1 Object)
(domain attribute 1 Object)
(domain axis 1 Object)
(domain axis 2 Object)...
which shows that, for example, the first argument to the askPrice relation is of type Object. If you want all the relations that apply to a given Class however, there is not a way to get that in the browser, in part because with over 1000 relations in SUMO it could be a very long list.
If you just want thematic roles, look at the class CaseRole, http://54.183.42.206:8080/sigma/Browse.jsp?kb=SUMO&lang=EnglishLanguage&flang=SUO-KIF&term=CaseRole or the hierarchy of such roles - http://54.183.42.206:8080/sigma/Graph.jsp?kb=SUMO&lang=EnglishLanguage&relation=subrelation&term=involvedInEvent&up=1&down=3&limit=&columns=direct-children&columns=documentation&columns=graph&view=text&submit=submit
The general CaseRole(s) will apply to Giving, since it is a Process, and the first argument of the general CaseRole(s) is a Process
Giving - http://54.183.42.206:8080/sigma/Browse.jsp?kb=SUMO&lang=EnglishLanguage&flang=SUO-KIF&term=Giving
and a hierarchy view - http://54.183.42.206:8080/sigma/Graph.jsp?kb=SUMO&lang=EnglishLanguage&relation=subclass&term=Giving&up=5&down=1&limit=&columns=direct-children&columns=documentation&columns=graph&view=text&submit=submit
If you really want an exhaustive list of relations applicable to a given class it wouldn't take much to write the Java code for that in the Sigma system. I could probably do that, depending upon your timeframe.
Adam
Resent-From: public-ontolex@w3.org
From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: 9 de setembro de 2015 07:34:57 BRT
To: public-ontolex@w3.org
Subject: Re: A final set of issues with the specification
Hi Francesca,
ok, that was my fear... so I will have to go through the KIF annotation.
Any other upper ontologies that we could use for our examples?
Philipp.
Am 08.09.15 um 14:04 schrieb QUATTRI, Francesca [11901993r]:
Hi Philipp,
thanks for the reply.
To the extent of my knowledge, I do not recall any automatic way to extract all the "role" names for an upper concept and/or its direct child in SUMO. In other words, if you are interested in the roles ("agent", "patient", "destination", etc.) in first order logic for let's say Giving, you will have to go through the KIF axioms, select the definition you are interested in (as you noticed, Giving is polysemous) and consider the roles assigned to that.
Also: These logical annotations are instantiations of events and entities as suggested by SUMO developers, i.e. you can come up with a different description, and hence different "role" names in first order for the same concept.
KIF is not the only formal language in SUMO, so the choice of SUO-KIF over other formal languages should be specified when selected over the others.
Regards,
Francesca
From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 7:17 PM
To: public-ontolex@w3.org
Subject: Re: A final set of issues with the specification Dear Francesca,
thanks, I was there already: http://54.183.42.206:8080/sigma/Browse.jsp?kb=SUMO&lang=EnglishLanguage&flang=SUO-KIF&term=Giving
However, I wonder how to get out the "thematic roles" of the concept "Giving" from the page. It mentions "agent", "patient", "destination" in the KIF axioms, but it says nowhere explicitly that there are the expected thematic roles of "Giving".
Or do I miss something?
Philipp.
Am 08.09.15 um 12:25 schrieb QUATTRI, Francesca [11901993r]:
Hi Philipp,
regarding SUMO: Maybe you can try http://www.adampease.org/OP/ > Browse (top of the page) > KB term and Graph (top right corner, same page). Adam developed an easy-to-read tree structure that allows you to retrieve the direct children of an upper concept without going through the first order logic. If you change the cardinal number in "Level "above"" and "level "below"" in the Graph page, you can go up to Entity and see all the direct children below.
Regards,
Francesca
From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 4:54 PM
To: public-ontolex@w3.org
Subject: Re: A final set of issues with the specification Dear all,
thanks for all your comments so far. I went today in detail over the synsem module, correcting minor things in the definitions, examples etc.
I think that the synsem module is also finished.
To Elena: the reason I used http://ontology.org/giving as a ficticious dummy-concept to represent a change of possession in some ontology. I simply haven't bothered to find an appropriate concept from a real ontology. This is unfortunate as the domain http://ontology.org exists and resolves... You can download "Big Data" at this URL btw. *lol*
I have been browsing SUMO this morning and there is such a concept (Giving as subclass of ChangeOfPossession). So we could point to sumo. The actual properties used in SUMO, however, seem to be the generic "agent", "patient" etc.
Do you think we should use SUMO for illustration here?
Any SUMO experts on this list? I do not find an easy way to find the "role" names for a process such as "Giving" from the SUMO browser. One can read the KIF axioms and imagine what the role names are, but I was wondering if there is a better way...
The same holds for the example for the condition property. John has used meansOfTransportation as an invented property. If anyone find an ontology with such a concept I would be grateful. It costs a lot of time to look around for ontologies with the appropriate properties.
All: I have rewritten a bit the section on "condition". Please check if the text and examples are aligned and are clear.
Btw: there is not a single mention anymore in the spec to "semantic arguments" ;-)
Elena: to the question: when is a property named linked to the actual ontology in which the property is defined? Good question. At least, the first reference to the property should be linked to the external ontology. It is possible that I have linked future references to the property as well. I think we can a bit lenient here.
The same holds for when to link to the definition of a property / class in ontolex itself, I have not followed a clear principle here. I am not sure it is really worth it though because I am not sure if the conversion to the HTML report will preserve all the intra-document links we have bothered to set. We will have to set them manually in the worst case I guess.
We need to regenerate the figures for the examples in the synsem section still.
Best regards,
Philipp.
Am 02.09.15 um 15:45 schrieb Elena Montiel Ponsoda:
Dear all,
Hope you all had a great holiday time.
Thanks for this summary. Between lines, some comments by Lupe and myself.
Best,
Elena
El 26/08/2015 a las 17:51, John McCrae escribió:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
Hi John,
thanks for the summary of open issues. I comment on them....
Am 24.07.15 um 13:37 schrieb John P. McCrae:
Hi all,
I made a thorough read-through of the specification and have some comments. There are five points that may be controversial and another few that should not be.
Important points
1. We do not given the abbreviation of "lexicon model for ontologies" as "lemon" although the term lemon is used at several points in the document. Do we agree that the model is called "lexicon model for ontologies" and abbreviated as "OntoLex-Lemon"?
Indeed, I propose we use the acronym lemon in the document, but in the introduction we should have the long name. I have fixed this already.
2. ontolex/example12 is very difficult to understand now that we have named this property "context" and not "usage". The idea that "riviere" can be extended with a usage note "A riviere is a river that flows into the sea" makes sense but it is not clear why the usage note is called a "context".... we need to either clearly justify this or rename the property to "usage". I prefer the latter option. (see also point 28)
True, I propose to move this example down where we discuss the usage property.
There is no "usage" property, we renamed it to "context".
After having a look at some bibliography on lexicography, we also agree on renaming the property "context" to "usage". It is considered general enough to refer to several types of "conditions" in which the use of a certain term is justified (context, domain, style, register, meaning nuances, connotations, etc.)
3. The vartrans:category "property indicates the specific type of a relation", we already have a property to do this namely rdf:type! It is not clear to me from the text why we need to redefine this property. (i.e., either we need to better justify this or drop this property)
No clear opinion about this yet.
The category property indicates the specific type of relation by which two lexical entries or two lexical senses are related.
Indeed, the definition may seem a bit general. However, the rdf:type property seems to us as"too underspecified" (and, therefore, not worthy of being included in the vartrans module...) and maybe not familiar to the linguistic community.
We propose to slightly modify the definition as "The category property indicates the specific type of lexico-semantic relation by which two lexical entries or two lexical senses are related"
And add an explanation in this line: This property is meant to capture different lexical and semantic relations of the sort: initialism, ortographic variant, dialectal or geographic variant, register variant, chronological variant, stylistic variant, dimensional variant, synonymy, antonymy, or translation. A set of lexico-semantic relations are available in the lexinfo vocabulary.
(A nice list of these types of variation and translation relations was included some time ago at: http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Properties-and-Relations-of-Entries)
Finally, ObjectProperty: Category, should be in small letters, right?
4. Lime defines a number of properties that are of the form "the number of links from X to Y divided by the total number of X" for example lime:avgNumOfLexicalizations is "the number of links from references to lexical entries divided by the total number of references". This can be put into a table as follows:
| X/Y | References | Entries | Concepts |
| References | - | avgNumOfLexicalizations | avgNumOfLinks |
| Entries | percentage | - | avgAmbiguity |
| Concepts | ? | avgSynonymy | -
|
The table reveals a few inconsistencies in that we have a missing property and the percentage property should perhaps be named something like avgPolysemy
5. As the NIF "community" has not responded to our questions, we are forced to drop recommendations of linking using NIF, and instead only recommend OpenAnnotation.
Not sure yet.
We wouldn't be so sure of leaving NIF out. It is quite well-known in the community, don't you think so?
Not-so-important points
(JPM) means I will try and fix them within the next two weeks
6. "Document is structured into eight sections" only there are nine (JPM)
Yes.
7. The first paragraph of the introduction is very academic, perhaps it could be rewritten to be more appealing to a general audience. (JPM)
I am not sure about the "academic", but I am ok if you work on it.
8. "sublcass" and a number of other basic spelling errors exist throughout the document. We must spell-check the document! (JPM)
Yes. I spotted some of those already today while doing a first pass over the document.
9. ontolex/example4 uses "/" around the IPA representations of the terms. I don't think that this is necessary. We should also explain the language tag and reference the IANA subtag catalogue.
OK, can you please look into this.
10. There is little consistency about whether we write "lexical entry" or "LexicalEntry" or use a fixed-width font. (JPM I prefer the real English 'lexical entry')
Yes, we should use small case here, that is 'lexical entry'.
11. Similarly we should check that terms like "rdfs:label" are always fixed-width (JPM)
ok
12. "with canonical form the noun" !? (JPM)
fixed
13. ontolex/example6 seems to duplicate ontolex/example1
Not really. Becasue in example1 we did not have the writtenRep etc. So this example is incremental. I think it is fine.
"Lexical entries are further specialized into words, affixes (e.g., suffix, prefix, infix or circumfix) and multiword expressions." then ontolex/example1
"Of course, lexical entries need not to correspond to one word only, they can correspond to a multi-word term, as the following example for the lexical entry "intangible assets" shows:" then ontolex/example6 ontolex/example6 seems to repeat the point and it is not clear why it does, could you revise the text before ontolex/example6?
14. We need an example showing how we represent abbreviations relative to their full forms (JPM)
True, can you add one example...
15. In the definition of "other form" we should probably not say "non-dictionary" but "non-lemma". (JPM)
Yes, agreed.
We would rather say "non-lemmatic form".
16. ontolex/example10 is still not good. The "bank" part of the example makes no sense as it is two separate entries with separate meanings, but it is not well explained why "bank" is two entries. The second part of this example uses the word "apothecary", which is a highly unusual word in English and I would not (personally) say is truly synonymous with "pharmacist". I had suggested using "troll" as the example here, but that seems not to have been adopted. Perhaps we also need a separate example explaining "bank" here too? (JPM)
I think the example is fine. Why does "bank" make no sense? The example gives guidance to people about how to model multiple meanings of a word.
We don't explain why "bank" is two lexical entries and "apothecary"/"troll" is one.
The case of bank shows the case where there are two different entries for the word and both the lexical entries and the meanings are unrelated.
The case of "apothecary" is the other case in which there is one lexical entry with two meanings.
I am fine though if we replace the "apothecary" example by the "troll example".
It seems that both meanings are indeed in DBpedia:
http://de.dbpedia.org/page/Troll_(Mythologie)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Netzkultur)
Ok then.
We think that it would be clearer if we divide the example into two separated examples.
As for the explanation included below the example, and I quote: "In the above example, two lexical entries have been used for bank. The reason is that in this case both words bank are actually not grammatically related and thus represent two independent lexical entries with meanings that are not related", we are of the opinion that the statement "are actually not grammatically related" is unnecessay, since morphologically they have the same sequence of letterns and are both nouns. Moreover, in a dictionary the entry would be the same. So we propose to simply remove "are actually not grammatically related and thus".
17. ontolex/example12 is listed in the text as synsem/example12! (JPM)
ok.
18. Terms like 'Lexicon' and 'Lexical Entry' should not be capitalized they are not proper nouns (JPM)
Yes.
19. The lexical concept can be better explained as follows: The reference in the ontology primarily gives an interpretation of a word in terms of the identifiers that would be generated by the semantic parsing of the sentence. For example if we were to understand the query "when did John Lennon die?" we may understand the word "die" as generating the URI dbpedia:deathDate within a SPARQL query. In contrast many resources will also wish to record the intentional meaning of the word with the mental lexicon, such as "die" referring to the concept of death, for this reason we introduce the class lexical concept which can be evoked by a lexical entry in place of or as well as a denotation in the ontology, e.g.,
:die a ontolex:Word ; ontolex:denotes dbpedia:deathDate ; ontolex:evokes wordnet:Dying . (JPM)
OK, but I would add this in addition to the explanation we have as an elaboration. I like the way you have phrased this.
We agree with adding this as an explanation, but not modifying the definition.
20. Capitalization in definition of OntoMap is wrong. (JPM)
Why is it wrong?
21. I don't like the paragraph 'An OntoMap resembles the SynSemCorrespondence...' as The OntoMap does not really resemble synsemcorrespondence I don't think we should compare to a closed standard like LMF that is unfamiliar to most of our audience Talking about semantic arguments will only create more confusion
Well, this is a major issue that I will bring up soon. I indeed see the OntoMap as the ontolex counterpart to the SynSemCorrespondence. In fact, I will argue not to regard OntoMap as a subclass of Lexical Sense. But let us not open this box today... ;-)
I thought (actually hoped) this was closed too.
22. All "dbpedia:" URIs should be fixed width (JPM)
This point is not clear to me, sorry.
Anything staring "dbpedia:" should be in fixed width
23. Some examples use "dbonto" and some "dbpedia"... inconsistent. (JPM)
Well, there are different namespaces in DBpedia as well. Should we be more consistent that DBpedia? We could try to stick to the ontology namespace however...
We should be consistent, dbpedia: sometimes is short for http://dbpedia.org/ontology/ and sometimes for http://dbpedia.org/resource/ and sometimes should be short for http://dbpedia.org/property/ but isn't
24. "The verb (to) launch" needs quotation marks (JPM)
OK
25. "Complex ontology mappings / submappings" talks about semantic arguments but this is confusing
Not sure why this is confusing. I still see the subject and object position of a triple as arguments of the triple. Maybe the term "semantic" is confusing here?
I want to remove any discussion of "semantic arguments" from this spec, these will be introduced in a future module (per the most recent agreement).
26. Indentation of synsem/example8 needs to be fixed (JPM)
OK
27. "If element x decides if x"... this is not a maths paper, use English.. (JPM)
This comes from me. I though this makes it clear that with isA we refer to the lambda-abstracted variable of a lambda expression or to the argument of a function that characterizes the set. I find this quite clear and think that it is understandable as such. But we can add an English sentence that clarifies this a bit.
28. condition is defined as a subproperty of usage (JPM, see point 2)
29. "not found in many other languages" => "not found in some other languages and more importantly in some ontologies" (JPM)
ok
30. I am not sure from a linguistic point of view that it is correct to say that "otitis" is composed of the affix "itis" in decomp/example3. In particular there is no Spanish word "ot" and "-itis" is a Greek inflection not a true suffix. An easier example would be with a normal prefix such as "un-", "re-" or "dis-"...
Well, it is. It is clearer if we use the term "apendicitis" In which "itis" again means inflammation. "apendic" stands for appendix. Is that better?
"Appendic" is still not a word... we could choose an example which is clearer, e.g., "un-"...
Appendic is not a word, but appendix + itis, or apéndice + itis (and the e is dropped)
The suffix is added to the root, as in the case of "ot" + "itis"
otos means "related to the ear" (referido al oído)
31. It appears that order information has been added to decomp/example6.... this is not necessary if we know that order of the words from the main entry and this representation actually saves a triple (ergo IMHO is superior!)
:AfricanSwineFever a ontolex:MultiwordExpression ; rdf:_1 African_node ; rdf:_2 Swine_node ; rdf:_3 Fever_node .
It does not hurt to add this information. Because the order is only implicit in the lexical entry. One would need to tokenize the lexical entry to get the order... Saving triples is not always good if one looses information that needs to be recovered...
Either way you have to recover some information. If you keep the example as is then the tokenization of the lexical entry needs to be recovered, if you switch to my model the parse order needs to be recovered, but tokenization is more useful and efficient to represent.
Why would it be more useful and efficient? Could you explain this?
32. "adjective -> adverb variation" not sure what "minus greater than" means here. (JPM change to arrow)
33. "Translation" section lists the "following ways [of representing translation] of increasing ontological strength"... but they are clearly not increasing! I am not really sure what ontological strength means.
This comes from me. I will revise it.
34. The diagram for lime metadata needs to be updated. (JPM)
35. lime/example2 "jnp" => "jpn" (JPM)
36. I have a comment on "Verb form mood" that appears to never have been answered. I assume that my merge has no objections. (JPM)
Regards, John
Some more spotted misspellings and stylistic nuances:
Domain: LexicalSense Range: rdfs:Ressource The combined usage of the properties denotes, sense, evokes, concept and lexicalized sense is demonstrated in the example below for the case of a lexical resource such as WordNet.. OntoLex/Lemon has a much simpler usage, removing many elements that were in LMF The following example gives an example of a sense relation: Proposal: The following example illustrates a sense relation: The following example shows how to model the relation between "Food and Agriculture Organisation" and its initialism "FAO" as one example of a lexical relation Proposal: The following example shows how to model the lexical relation between "Food and Agriculture Organisation" and its initialism "FAO"
In the introductory paragraph to Syntactic Frames, we think it should be: stand on their own, and not by their own
In the definition of Syntactic Frame, the definite article "the" is missing in "in terms of the (syntactic) arguments"
A comma is missing in the sentence below "... the preposition in, ..."
The following example shows how to specify that the intransitive verb operate, subcategorizing a prepositional phrase introduced by the preposition in can be used to denote the propertyregionServed in DBpedia
In the next sentence, examples should be in singular:
The following examples shows how to use the submap property to indicate that the meaning of the phrase "X launched Y in Z" is a composition of the properties dbpedia:product anddbpedia:productionStartYear, which together express the meaning of the syntactic frame
In the following sentence below example 6, quantifier should be quantifying Adam Pease Formal Ontology - www.ontologyportal.org
Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 21:34:29 UTC