Re: MHDBDB: Connecting Senses with multiple Concepts

Dear Peter (if I may),

I've been working with onomasiological orderings myself. Perhaps
*lemon-tree* can be of use?
Lemon-tree is intended to act as glue, as it were, striving to combine SKOS
and Lemon-Ontolex for such lexicographic resources.
See http://w3id.org/lemon-tree for the latest documentation.

>From the looks of it, I've been working with very similar content in my own
research: a thesaurus capturing Old English.
I'd be happy to share my work so far and help out where possible!

Kind regards,
Sander Stolk


On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 14:25, Hinkelmanns Peter <peter.hinkelmanns@sbg.ac.at>
wrote:

> Dear Christian,
>
>
>
> thank you very much for your response! Our conceptual system is already a
> simple SKOS ontology. A single concepts looks like this:
>
>
>
> <skos:Concept rdf:about="http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/concept#23250000">
>
>     <skos:inScheme rdf:resource="
> http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/ontologies#ConceptualSystem"/>
>
>     <skos:prefLabel xml:lang="en">Castle</skos:prefLabel>
>
>     <skos:prefLabel xml:lang="de">Die Burg</skos:prefLabel>
>
>     <skos:broader rdf:resource="
> http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/concept#23200000"/>
>
>     <skos:narrower rdf:resource="
> http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/concept#23251000"/>
>
>     <skos:narrower rdf:resource="
> http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/concept#23252000"/>
>
> </skos:Concept>
>
>
>
> The not so borderline solution would be the creation of a SKOS concept for
> each used combination of concepts? So the first sense of *hûs* would look
> like this as an individual SKOS:Concept:
>
>
>
> <skos:Concept rdf:about="http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/sense#1234">
>
>     <skos:inScheme rdf:resource="
> http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/ontologies#SenseProperties"/>
>
>     <skos:broader rdf:resource="http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/concept#
> 23250000"/>
>
>     <skos:broader rdf:resource="http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/concept#
> 23309000"/>
>
>     <skos:broader rdf:resource="http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/concept#
> 23309020"/>
>
> </skos:Concept>
>
>
>
> And the modified lexicalizedSense should look like:
>
> <ontolex:LexicalSense rdf:about="http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/sense#4709">
>     <ontolex:isSenseOf rdf:resource="
> http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/entry#2933"/>
>     *<ontolex:reference rdf:resource="**http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/sense#1234
> <http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/sense#1234>**"/>*
> </ontolex:LexicalSense>
>
> Maybe we could actually benefit from those extra-layers of information. At
> the Moment, there is no linking between entries which share the same
> combination of concepts as a sense element. With that solution, all equal
> sense elements would point to the same SKOS concepts, but with the
> lexicalizedSense layer there is even a place to put information not shared
> by all entries but only belonging to one individual sense. So it might be
> acceptable not to use the blank node version preferred by you, even if
> there aren’t that many entries which share a specific combination of
> concepts as a sense.
>
>
>
> And yes, we also need a solution for multiple POS statements. Maybe it
> would be the cleanest solution to add an individual ontolex:Word for each
> POS statement and link those entries? It leads to the question, how to
> define an article in the dictionary. Do entries with multiple use cases aka
> POS exist? Or is it better to have individual entries?
>
>
>
> And again: Thank you very much!
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *Peter Hinkelmanns MA*
>
> Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter
>
> Mittelhochdeutsche Begriffsdatenbank (MHDBDB) | IZMF
>
> Universität Salzburg | Erzabt-Klotz-Straße 1, A-5020 Salzburg |
>
> Tel. +43 662 8044 4339 | e-mail: peter.hinkelmanns@sbg.ac.at
>
> Internet: CV und Fodok
> <http://mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at:8300/wordpress/hinkelmanns/> | mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at
>  | facebook.com/mhdbdb <https://www.facebook.com/mhdbdb> |
> twitter.com/MHD_BDB
>
>
>
> *Please consider the environment before printing this email*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Christian Chiarcos [mailto:chiarcos@informatik.uni-frankfurt.de]
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 06. November 2018 08:17
> *An:* 'public-ontolex@w3.org'; Hinkelmanns Peter
> *Cc:* christian.chiarcos@web.de
> *Betreff:* Re: MHDBDB: Connecting Senses with multiple Concepts
>
>
>
> Dear Peter,
>
>
>
> great to see the MHDBDB being converted to RDF. For your use case, I would
> actually not model the conceptual system itself in lemon, but rather use
> SKOS and provide only lexicalization information in lemon. In other words,
> your concept hierarchy is the ONtology element in lemON and ONtoLex, and
> this is actually the original use case of lemon.
>
>
>
> The relation for linking with an ontology is ontolex:reference. The spec
> requires that "The lexical sense has a single lexical entry and a single
> reference in the ontology." (As in other cases, I think this is too
> restrictive.) So, your problem remains the same.
>
>
>
> The "proper" solution would be to create "lexicalized concepts" in your
> thesaurus (which can have skos:broader relations to more than one skos
> concept), and to connect these with your lexical entries via
> ontolex:reference.
>
>
>
> A shortcut, if you will, would be to use blank nodes as part of the
> ontolex linking:
>
>
>
> mhdbdbLex:sense4709 ontolex:reference [ skos:broader
> mhdbdbThes:concept23250000,  mhdbdbThes:concept23309000,
> mhdbdbThes:concept23309020 ] .
>
>
>
> Technically, this would be valid, but it is a bit borderline, because the
> blank node is not strictly speaking *in* the ontology/thesaurus. (It is
> certainly not worse than not having an ontology, though, as in most
> lexicography use cases.)
>
>
>
> From a modelling perspective, I would prefer the second solution despite
> these difficulties, as otherwise, the thesaurus grows infinitely with every
> novel word being added. Blank nodes created as part of the linking are easy
> to filter out if you need to work with the categories alone. Also, imagine
> a use case where you have different lexicalizations/lemon models to be
> linked to a single ontology, and those lemon models may require fusing
> concepts in a different way. Using blank nodes as part of the linking makes
> sure that lexicalization- (lexicon-) specific concept fusion can be clearly
> separated from the (language-independent) concept hierarchy.
>
>
>
> We have similar difficulties (and no better solution) for multiple parts
> of speech for the same lexical entry, etc.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Christian
>
>
>
> Am .11.2018, 12:16 Uhr, schrieb Hinkelmanns Peter <
> peter.hinkelmanns@sbg.ac.at>:
>
>
>
> Dear Ontolex-List,
>
>
>
> I’m writing as a team member of the „Middle High German Conceptual
> Database“ (MHDBDB, http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at), an onomasiological
> dictionary of middle high German. We are planning to convert our 40.000+
> dictionary articles to Ontolex. An *article* consists of one or many
> *senses* which refer to one or many * categories* of our conceptual
> system:
>
>
>
>
>
> In the example above you can see that the entry ‘hûs’ has two senses which
> each point to different categories in our conceptual system. The conceptual
> system has already been converted to SKOS. My attempt to express the entry
> ‘hûs’ with ontolex looks like this:
>
>
>
> <rdf….>
>
>   <ontolex:Word rdf:about="http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/entry#2933">
>
>     <ontolex:lexicalForm>
>
>       <ontolex:Form>
>
>         <ontolex:writtenRep>hûs</ontolex:writtenRep>
>
>       </ontolex:Form>
>
>     </ontolex:lexicalForm>
>
>     <lexinfo:partOfSpeech rdf:resource="
> http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/grammar#NOM"/>
>
>     <ontolex:sense rdf:resource="http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/sense#4709"/>
>
>     <ontolex:sense rdf:resource="http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/sense#28403
> "/>
>
>   </ontolex:Word>
>
>   <ontolex:LexicalSense rdf:about="http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/sense#4709
> ">
>
>     <ontolex:isSenseOf rdf:resource="
> http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/entry#2933"/>
>
>     <ontolex:isLexicalizedSenseOf rdf:resource="
> http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/concept#23250000"/>
>
>     <ontolex:isLexicalizedSenseOf rdf:resource="
> http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/concept#23309000"/>
>
>     <ontolex:isLexicalizedSenseOf rdf:resource="
> http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/concept#23309020"/>
>
>   </ontolex:LexicalSense>
>
>   <ontolex:LexicalSense rdf:about="http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/sense#28403
> ">
>
>     <ontolex:isSenseOf rdf:resource="
> http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/entry#2933"/>
>
>     <ontolex:isLexicalizedSenseOf rdf:resource="
> http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/concept#23209000"/>
>
>     <ontolex:isLexicalizedSenseOf rdf:resource="
> http://www.mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at/concept#23309020"/>
>
>   </ontolex:LexicalSense>
>
> </rdf>
>
>
>
> As you can see above, I’m doing something probably not intended by
> Ontolex: A lexical sense consists of multiple *isLexicalizedSenseOf*
> references, mirroring the MHDBDB datastructure.
>
>
>
> How could our article structure be transferred to Ontolex correctly
> according to the scheme?
>
>
>
> Many thanks in advance and best regards
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *Peter Hinkelmanns MA*
>
> Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter
>
> Mittelhochdeutsche Begriffsdatenbank (MHDBDB) | IZMF
>
> Universität Salzburg | Erzabt-Klotz-Straße 1, A-5020 Salzburg |
>
> Tel. +43 662 8044 4339 | e-mail: peter.hinkelmanns@sbg.ac.at
>
> Internet: CV und Fodok
> <http://mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at:8300/wordpress/hinkelmanns/> | mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at
>  | facebook.com/mhdbdb <https://www.facebook.com/mhdbdb> |
> twitter.com/MHD_BDB
>
>
>
> *Please consider the environment before printing this email*
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Prof. Dr. Christian Chiarcos
> Applied Computational Linguistics
> Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität Frankfurt a. M.
> 60054 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
>
> office: Robert-Mayer-Str. 10, #401b
> mail: chiarcos@informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
> web: http://acoli.cs.uni-frankfurt.de
> tel: +49-(0)69-798-22463
> fax: +49-(0)69-798-28931
>


-- 
Sander Stolk, MSc MA