- From: John McCrae <john@mccr.ae>
- Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 15:06:58 +0100
- To: "Shoaib M. Chaudhary" <muhemmed.shoaib@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es>, Julia Bosque Gil <jbosque@fi.upm.es>, Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAC5njqruZe83=jfL0HONzVfChXcoAEX8fEoAYGu8OWjTf7UWkw@mail.gmail.com>
Hello Shoaib, The meeting took place at 15:00 CEST today. To join the next meeting please join the Skype group at https://join.skype.com/ch2Wsi84Zb1c and the next call will be announced shortly. Regards, John On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Shoaib M. Chaudhary < muhemmed.shoaib@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > I am interested in joining Skype Meeting. Can I please get the > instructions? > > Kind Regards > Shoaib > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:56 PM, John McCrae <john@mccr.ae> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es> wrote: >> >>> Hi John, all, >>> >>> Thanks for your comments. Let me share my view on this, for later >>> discussion in today's telco >>> >>> > Thus, in my interpretation, senses in traditional dictionaries should >>> always be modeled as lexical concepts. >>> >>> I think that there are still good reasons to model "dictionary senses" >>> as "lexical senses" in some cases (as people have been done in previous >>> lemon, btw). In particular, according to the ontolex specification, >>> translations (and other types of sense relations) are established >>> between lexical senses but not between lexical concepts. Therefore, >>> bilingual/multilingual dictionaries need the creation of lexical senses if >>> we want to represent translations explicitly. In such cases, creating a >>> "lexical concept" counterpart for the needed lexical senses might result in >>> overloading the modelling unnecessarily. >>> >> Yes, actually if you follow my chart, in the case of a bilingual >> dictionary[1] lexical senses would be the correct answer. >> >> Is there are definition? No (or at least not consistently so, as many >> entries in bilingual dictionaries have no definitions) >> Does this object have relations? Yes >> Are there subsumption (is-a) relations? No >> Do these relations apply to synonyms? Never (as in a biliingual >> dictionary, synonyms have different translations)* >> Do these relations apply to homographs? No => LexicalSense >> >> This changes when you have proper definitions (such as how Seppälä >> defines a 'definition' [2] as having at least a *genus *and a >> *differentia*). In this case there is clearly a 'mental concept' being >> evoked by the definition and so a lexical concept must be introduced. For >> the case of Petit Larousse, we have in my mind clearly stepped over this >> boundary and are talking about these 'mental concepts'. >> >> > I think we need to make a clear and unambiguous definition of lexical >>> sense, that precludes its usage without an ontological >>> > reference, as this is how it is defined both in the final >>> specification and in the OWL code (reference exactly 1). >>> >>> Although I understand this point, relaxing this restriction, as we did >>> in the RDF generation of the Apertium family of bilingual dictionaries, >>> proved to be very useful: in short, to represent translations we created >>> "artificial" lexical senses (associated to their corresponding lexical >>> entries in different languages, and defining translations between them) to >>> support the fact that translations were established not between words but >>> between word meanings, leaving such lexical senses not linked to external >>> references initially. Then, as a later step, we were able to connect some >>> of these "orphan" lexical senses to BabelSynsets, while other senses remain >>> unconnected. This might be not 100% compliant with the ontolex definition >>> but is a natural pattern that emerges when you model "botton-up" from >>> lexicon to ontology, and gives you the flexibility of connecting senses >>> among them (e.g., via translations) or to external references when >>> available (e.g., BabelNet) even if the reference is not known beforehand. >>> >>> In fact, the idea of "precluding the usage of lexical sense without an >>> ontological reference" corresponds to a purely top-down vision, that is, >>> lexical senses can be used only when you "know" the ontology and can go >>> from the ontology to the lexicon. This vision obliges you to use lexical >>> concepts instead in the reverse way (from lexicon to ontology). In my view, >>> however, the modelling mechanism should be the same no matter you go >>> bottom-up or top-down, and the "lexical entry" <-> "lexical sense" <-> >>> "reference" path covers both perfectly. >>> >> The current axiomatization of lexical sense requires a reference. It is >> possible to still have a valid resource without a reference (due to the >> open world assumption) however it is a quality issue for the lexicon. We >> could look to change this axiom, however we should be very conservative >> about changing this, and personally I would prefer to recommend that in >> cases (like bilingual dictionaries) where lexical senses are used, a dummy >> reference is still introduced to promote interoperability. >> >>> Maybe I did not get it right, but I understood that LexicalConcept was >>> introduced in the last ontolex version to cover structures such as >>> WordNet-like synsets (i.e., groups of words that share a common definition >>> and underlying meaning), which might be suitable for some dictionaries but >>> not for all of them. In other cases (specially to support translations) >>> LexicalSenses could be enough. >>> >> Yes, I think we agree, but most print dictionaries will have to introduce >> a lexical concept to be modeled in OntoLex >> >> *About translation: We have previously distinguished between translation >> links as a process as opposed to interlingual synonymy. Interlingual >> synonymy is represented in OntoLex-Lemon by means of using the same lexical >> concept or ontology reference for lexical entries in different languages, >> hence translation is implicit in the multilingual lexicalizations of a >> concept. The VarTrans module models translation as a process that starts >> with a particular sense of a lexical entry and translates it to a sense of >> another lexical entry, the link represented using the VarTrans module is >> thus the result of this process. >> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Jorge >>> >> >> Regards, >> John >> >> [1] I mean something like this http://www.teanglann.ie/ga/fgb/focal >> [2] Seppälä, Selja, Alan Ruttenberg, Yonatan Schreiber, and Barry Smith. >> 2016a. Definitions in Ontologies. Cahiers de lexicologie 2(109, La >> définition):173–206. >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2017-10-23 12:56 GMT+02:00 John McCrae <john@mccr.ae>: >>> >>> > >>> >>> > HI all, >>> > >>> > I suggested another version that follows the existing specification >>> https://www.w3.org/2016/05/ontolex/ >>> > >>> > We wrote that >>> > >>> > "A* lexical sense* represents the lexical meaning of a lexical entry >>> when interpreted as referring to the corresponding ontology element" >>> > >>> > And in contrast >>> > >>> > "we would like to express the fact that a certain lexical entry evokes >>> a certain mental concept rather than that it refers to a class with a >>> formal interpretation in some model. Thus, in lemon we introduce the class* >>> Lexical Concept*" >>> > >>> > Thus, in my interpretation, senses in traditional dictionaries should >>> always be modeled as lexical concepts. >>> > >>> > Lexical sense has always been quite a technical concept, and honestly >>> I think calling it 'lexical sense' has created much confusion (way back in >>> the first Lemon model I had proposed to call it a* sememe)*. I think we >>> need to make a clear and unambiguous definition of lexical sense, that >>> precludes its usage without an ontological reference, as this is how it is >>> defined both in the final specification and in the OWL code (*reference >>> exactly 1*). >>> > >>> > I have created a flowchart (for discussion, attached) to try and >>> explain (IMHO) the differences between senses, concepts and references. >>> > >>> > I also noted that there is no need to define a new example object if >>> it only has an rdf:value, in this case using a single skos:example triple >>> is both more compact and inter-operable. >>> > >>> > Regards, >>> > John >>> > >>> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Julia Bosque Gil <jbosque@fi.upm.es> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Hi, Philipp, all: >>> >> >>> >> We have a first draft of the RDF for Francesca's PLI *verre, * >>> *mousse, *and *estomaquer *examples in the shared document >>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TogPjrLyJS0OK5pzww28751MX7179-NzCIsDdzae65o/edit>. >>> Francesca, Fahad and I were working on it the other day, but some things >>> are still unclear to us (marked in red color and with comments on the >>> margin). >>> >> >>> *>> Summary:* >>> >> >>> >> - Lexical definitions are included at the LexicalSense level and the >>> encyclopedic one at the LexicalConcept level (I seem to remember this >>> was suggested during our last telco) >>> >> - The decomp module is used to relate *maison de verre, petite >>> verre, etc.* to* verre*. >>> >> - At the end of the RDF you'll see how option 3' (from the ones we >>> discussed in September), with DictionaryEntries and >>> DictionaryEntryComponents, could be applied here if we wanted to record >>> that both the lexical entry *verre* as well as *maison de verre, petite >>> verre, *etc. belong to the same dictionary entry, and the latter are >>> not considered dictionary entries themselves in the PLI. >>> >> >>> >> Best regards, >>> >> >>> >> Julia >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> 2017-10-22 18:08 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano < >>> cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> >>> we agreed to have our next regular ontolex skype call next Tuesday, >>> >>> 24th of October at 14:00 CET. >>> >>> >>> >>> We will do the call by skype. >>> >>> >>> >>> I will not be available as I am currently attending the ISWC >>> conference >>> >>> in Vienna, but John agreed to lead the teleconference. >>> >>> >>> >>> The main outcome could be to provide a proposal for how to model the >>> >>> Petit Larousse examples provided by Francesca during the >>> teleconference >>> >>> last week. >>> >>> >>> >>> Did anyone manage to have a look and try to provide some RDF code >>> that >>> >>> can be discussed during the telco next Tuesday? >>> >>> >>> >>> I have cleaned up a little bit the minutes from the last skype call: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_20 >>> 17.10.10,_15-16_pm_CET >>> <https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2017.10.10,_15-16_pm_CET> >>> >>> >>> >>> Greetings, >>> >>> >>> >>> Philipp. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> -- >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> >>> >> Julia Bosque Gil >>> >> PhD Student >>> >> Ontology Engineering Group <http://www.oeg-upm.net/> >>> >> Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial >>> >> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid >>> > >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> Jorge Gracia, PhD >>> Ontology Engineering Group >>> Artificial Intelligence Department >>> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid >>> http://jogracia.url.ph/web/ >>> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 24 October 2017 14:07:27 UTC