Re: relations about lexical entries

Dear Lupe and Elena,

  thanks a lot for this input. It is really great. It is good to see 
some good work going on here.

Let me simply comment on three issues:

1) Conceptually, I like the distinction between 1A (Multilingual 
Labelling Approach) and 1B (Cross-lingual Labelling Approach), but from 
the point of view of the lexicon-ontology interface or lexicon-ontology 
model, I do not think that 1A and 1B make much off a difference. In 
particular, the equivalence relations 1-4 are both relevant in scenario 
1A as well as 1B, isn't it?

2) Concerning the equivalence relations 1-4, I think they are a good 
start. It seems that a superproperty of these equivalence relations 
could be a relation of can-be-substituted-for, right? Of course, 
subtituting one lexical entry by an equivalent one (might have pragmatic 
or semantic implications). In any case, I like these distinctions.

3) Concerning the relations between the same language: I think group 1 
and group 2 are a good start, but what about such relations as 
"abbreviation-of". Would they fit into group 1 or 2? Or do we need 
another group?

Other that that, I would appreciate if we stop using the term "labels" 
and start talking about lexical entries. The term "lexical entry" 
highlight that we are not talking about flat labels, but about lexical 
structures that have complex linguistic properties.

Overall, I like your proposal very much and think it is a very good 
start for narrowing down the requirements.

Thanks for this start,

Philipp.

Am 05.08.12 21:56, schrieb lupe aguado:
> Dear Ontolex members
>
> With this message we would like to start the discussion about the 
> requirements on “Relations between lexical entries”. I put the message 
> as a draft in the Ontolex community Group and forgot to send it to 
> you. Sorry!
>
> In our opinion, two types of relations need to be taken into account 
> in an ontology-lexicon model:
>
>    1. *relations between labels in different natural languages,* and
>    2. *relations between labels within the same natural language.*
>
> Before continuing, we would like to define the two scenarios that we 
> envisage:
>
>    1. *A. **Multilingual labeling approach*
>
> In a multilingual labeling approach, we have a single conceptual 
> structure, and we provide alternative labeling information in the 
> ontology-lexicon model for each of the languages covered (in the same 
> language or in different languages). This is possible whenever the 
> languages covered share a single view on a certain domain. In this 
> case, there will always be one or several labels in each natural 
> language for naming or terming the concepts in the ontology.
>
>    1. *B. **Cross-lingual linking or mapping approach*
>
> In this second scenario, there exist two independent monolingual 
> ontologies, defined in different languages, but covering the same or 
> similar subject domain. We aim at establishing links between the 
> labels that describe the two ontologies. The establishment of these 
> cross-lingual links could derive in cross-lingual ontology mappings. 
> In this scenario, the conceptual structure of each ontology is modeled 
> independently, and “linguistic links” or “mappings” can be established 
> between the two.
>
> ---------
>
> Now, in a *multilingual labeling approach*, we will usually refer to 
> “cross-lingual equivalents”.  Let us take for example an ontology of 
> medical conditions. In such an ontology we can find terms such as 
> menopause in English, and its cross-lingual equivalents: menopause in 
> French, menopause in Danish, vaihdevuodet in Finnish or Menopause in 
> German. This means that the “same” concept exists in the involved 
> cultures and has an equivalent term in the corresponding language.
>
> On the contrary, in a *cross-lingual linking or mapping approach*, we 
> could come across several types of relations among lexical entries due 
> to the following reasons:
>
>     * conceptualization mismatches
>     * different levels of granularity
>
> In fact, granularity or viewpoint differences may also come up in a 
> “monolingual” linking or mapping approach. However, conceptualization 
> mismatches will be more common in a cross-lingual scenario. In this 
> sense, we could account for several types of relations
>
> 1. *Cross-lingual equivalence relations*, as in the multilingual 
> labeling scenario. These would establish a relation between concepts 
> that are not exactly the same (do not have the same intension and/or 
> extension), but are close equivalents, because no exact equivalent 
> exists.  Example: full professor in English – catedrático in Spanish – 
> Professor in German. In order to distinguish them from the 
> cross-lingual equivalents in the multilingual labeling scenario, we 
> could term them: *cross-lingual close equivalents*? *Cross-lingual 
> near equivalents*? Suggestions are welcome!!
>
> 2. *Cross-lingual broad (narrow) equivalence relations*. These would 
> establish a relation between concepts with different levels of 
> granularity. This usually happens when one culture understands a 
> concept or phenomenon with a higher granularity than the other, i.e., 
> one culture has two or more concepts (and in its turn, terms for 
> naming them) to describe the same phenomenon. Example: river in 
> English – rivière and fleuve in French; Tötung in German – asesinato 
> and homicidio in Spanish. Here again, suggestions for better examples 
> are welcome.
>
> In the case no equivalent exists, we could still provide a term or 
> description, using for this a mixed scenario, i.e., providing some 
> labels or lexical entries for the concept we do not find an equivalent 
> term in the other ontology, as in the multilingual labeling approach. 
> For this, we consider two options:
>
> 3. *Literal translation relations*. These are translations of terms 
> that describe concepts that do not exist in the target language, and 
> for which a literal or “word for word translation” is provided so that 
> the concept is understood by the target language. Example: École 
> normal in French– (French) Normal School in English; Presidente del 
> Gobierno in Spanish – President of the Government in English.
>
> 4. *Descriptive translation relations.* These are translations of 
> terms that describe concepts that do not exist in the target language, 
> and for which a description or definition (and not a term) is provided 
> in the target language. Example: Panetone in Italian – bizcocho 
> italiano que se consume en Nochevieja in Spanish. In this case, we 
> could also opt for repeating the Italian Word plus the gloss.
>
> In the latter two cases, we could also provide a link to the closest 
> equivalent or superclass (by means of the cross-lingual broad 
> equivalence relation), and additionally provide a literal or 
> descriptive translation.
>
> -------
>
> As for the *relations* *between labels within the same language*, we 
> propose to talk about “term variation”.  For example:  what is the 
> difference between Advertising and Publicity, if any? And between 
> Contamination and Pollution?, or between Assisted conception, 
> Artificial insemination and in vitro Fertilization? In a SKOS 
> Thesaurus, Assisted conception is the main label, and the rest are 
> alternative labels. However, we think that we could be more specific 
> regarding the type of variants pointing to one and the same concept in 
> the ontology, and that this should be accounted for in our 
> ontology-lexicon model. Sometimes, the difference is a consequence of 
> the contextual (pragmatic) usage, and we have to decide whether to 
> represent this in our model.
>
> Based on previous classifications of terminology variation, we have 
> identified three main groups of term variants that include the 
> following types (see also [1] and [2]):
>
> *Group 1*. Synomyms or terminological units that totally correspond to 
> the same concept:
>
>     * graphical and orthographical variants (/localization
>       /and/localisation/);
>     * inflectional variants (/cat/ and /cats/);
>     * morphosyntactic variants (/nitrogen fixation/ and /fixation of
>       nitrogen/).
>
> *Group 2*. Partial synonyms or terminological units that highlight 
> different aspects of the same concept:
>
>     * stylistic or connotative variants (/man/ and /bloke/)
>     * diachronic variants (/tuberculosis/ and /phthisis/)
>     * dialectal variants (/gasoline/ vs. /petrol/)
>     * pragmatic or register variants (/headache/ and /cephalalgia/;
>       /swine flu/ and /pig flu/ and /H1N1/ and /Mexic pandemic flu/)
>     * explicative variants (/immigration law/ and /law for regulating
>       and controlling immigration/)
>
> So, we would be very grateful for your suggestions and comments on 
> this proposal.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Lupe and Elena
>
> [1] Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Aguado de Cea, G., McCrae, J. (2011). 
> Representing term variation in /lemon/. In Proceedings of the /WS 
> 2Ontology and lexicon: new insights, TIA 2011 - 9th International 
> Conference on Terminology and Artificial Intelligence/, pp. 47–50.
>
> [2] Aguado de Cea, G., and Montiel-Ponsoda, E. (2012).  Term variants 
> in ontologies. In Proceedings of the AESLA (/Asociación Española de 
> Lingüística Aplicada/) Conference.
>
>
>
>
> 2012/7/18 Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de 
> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>>
>
>     Dear all,
>
>      and just to clarify what the description of the requirements
>     should include:
>
>     Under "Description", there should be a general description of the
>     requirement, its implications, etc. It is important that we think
>     here in terms of requirements on the general model, not on
>     particular data categories, properties, etc. but on requirements
>     at the meta-model level.
>
>     Under "Relevant Use Cases": here we should just list the IDs of
>     the use cases touched by this requirement. Maybe this should be
>     called "Affected Use Cases" ???
>
>     "Relation to Use Case": here we should give detailed examples from
>     the use cases where the requirement is important, thus grounding
>     our requirements in the use cases we have collected.
>
>     If there are any questions on this, just shoot.
>
>     Best regards,
>
>     Philipp.
>
>
>
>     Am 18.07.12 14:24, schrieb Philipp Cimiano:
>
>         Dear ontolex members,
>
>          during our last meeting on the 6th of July, we discussed my
>         condensed list of requirements on the model and agreed that it
>         looks promising to work on the basis of these from now on.
>
>         See here:
>         http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements
>
>         The older list of unstructured requirements is linked from the
>         bottom of the page.
>
>         We fixed the following responsibles to produce a first draft
>         of the requirement and kick-off the discussions on this
>         mailinglist. (We really need to start the discussion on the
>         relevant issues!)
>
>         - Express Meaning with respect to ontology:
>         John/Philipp/Aldo/Guido
>         - Lexical Variation and Paraphrases: Philipp
>         - Relation between lexical entries: Lupe/Elena
>         - Lexical and linguistic properties of lexical entries:
>         John/Philipp
>         - Valence and Ontological Mapping: John/Philipp
>         - High-Order Predicate Mapping: John/Philipp
>         - Lexico-Syntactic Patterns: Elena/Dagmar
>         - Metadata about lexicon: Armando
>         - Modelling lexical resources: John/Aldo
>
>         The goal would be to have a detailed specification and an
>         ongoing discussion on this mailinglist by end of August.
>
>         The next teleconference will be on September 6th, 15:00 -
>         17:00 (CET). It will be two hours as we decided to skip the
>         one in August due to holiday period.
>
>         We also decided to have biweekly teleconferences from
>         September on. I think it is important to keep things moving
>         quickly. Otherwise I have the feeling that not much happens in
>         between our monthly teleconferences.
>
>         I am now on holidays for two weeks and will then start working
>         on the requirements assigned to me.
>         Needless to say, everyone should feel free to start working on
>         their requirements as soon as possible.
>
>         If you think that an important requirement is missing, please
>         post it on the list and we will discuss it.
>
>         Best regards,
>
>         Philipp.
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
>     Semantic Computing Group
>     Excellence Cluster - Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
>     University of Bielefeld
>
>     Phone: +49 521 106 12249 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249>
>     Fax: +49 521 106 12412 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012412>
>     Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>     <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
>
>     Room H-127
>     Morgenbreede 39
>     33615 Bielefeld
>
>
>


-- 
Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
Semantic Computing Group
Excellence Cluster - Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
University of Bielefeld

Phone: +49 521 106 12249
Fax: +49 521 106 12412
Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de

Room H-127
Morgenbreede 39
33615 Bielefeld