Re: relations about lexical entries

Hi Harry,

Yeah, thinking about it... I think I made a mistake here... the distinction
should be

*Group 1b. Inflectional Variants*

   - Inflection
   - Fusional Synthesis (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusional_language)

*Group 1c. Morphosyntactic Variants*

   - Agglutinative variants
   - Polysynthetic variants (??)
   - etc.

The distinction is motivated as follows: *1b *consists of variation within
a lexical entry, and *1c *variation with multiple lexical entries, where I
use the following definition of lexical entry: A lexical entry consists of
all words or phrases which have the same syntactic category
(part-of-speech) and its decomposition (if any) consists of the same
sub-entries with the same categories and in the same order

Of course, this leaves things still up in the air of course... as for
Finnish something like "talossa" (in the house) could be modeled as "talo"
+ "-ssa" (meaning "-ssa" is also an entry in the lexicon), or "talossa" =
"talo" + inessive case. As you say the distinction is difficult to make,
regardless... I think the ontology-lexicon model shouldn't care which
distinction is made but must change its modelling accordingly to whether we
are talking about inter-entry and intra-entry relations.

Regards,
John

NB I assume all derivation leads to new lexical entries and so is
"inter-entry"

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Lars Borin <lars.borin@svenska.gu.se>wrote:

>  Dear John and others,
>
> As someone with a background in linguistic morphology (although it's been
> a while now) and computational lexicography (more recently), I feel that
> the proposed distinction between 1b and 1c will be very hard to make in an
> unambiguous way. Partly this may be due to the terminology, which is
> different from what I am used to from linguistics, where "morphosyntactic"
> properties are expressed by "inflectional" morphology, and "synthesis" is a
> technique (a way of assemling words) which in principle is neutral wrt the
> distinction between inflectional and derivational/lexical morphology. Since
> in the general case the boundary between inflectional and
> derivational/lexical morphology is far from clear, it will probably be more
> effort than it's worth to keep categories 1b and 1c separate. Individual
> languages (if they have a codified grammatical tradition, which most
> languages don't) will often have determined on more or leass clear grounds
> which morphological categories belong under which label (inflection or
> derivation)l, but cross-linguistically there are at the most tendencies, so
> that, e.g., number if expressed morphologically will tend to be an
> inflectional category.
>
> The inclusion of inflectional and derivational morphology in the list also
> raises the vexed question of the nature of grammatical meaning. The use of
> "variant" for the number or case or other inflectional distinction implies
> that "in my houses" (as in Finnish inflected form _taloissani_ 'house
> plural inessive 1st person singular possessive') means more or less the
> same thing as "house", or am I reading to much into this? How about
> derivations like, e.g., "doer", "detainee", "eatery"? In other words: When
> you say "preserved semantic properties", is this also taken to imply "no
> added semantic properties"?
>
> Best
> Lars Borin
>
>
> 2012-08-20 18:34, John McCrae skrev:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Can I suggest we merge the following requirements on "Lexical Variant and
> Paraphrases" and "Lexical and linguistic properties of lexical entries"?
>
> My reasoning is that it seems that what Lupe is suggesting relies heavily
> on the definition of properties. i.e., to model geographical variants,
> register variants or diachronic variants, we need to be able to state the
> geographical, register or diachronic properties of the two variants. As
> such *we can think of variation in terms of the properties that vary* and
> those that do not. Put more clearly, variants are entries that are similar
> (have the same property values) except for some property, e.g., translation
> is variation in language, pluralization is variation in number, etc.
>
> Considering the list of variants above, the following properties are
> preserved by the type of variance
>
>    - Orthographic variants. Preserved: Pronounciation, syntax, most
>    pragmatic, semantic properties. Differs: Generally context or geographic
>    usage
>    - Inflectional variants. Preserved: part-of-speech, pragmatic and
>    semantic properties.
>    - Morphosyntactic variants. Preserved: semantic properties, most
>    pragmatic properties.
>    - Stylistic+Register variants. Preserved: semantics.
>    - Diachronic variants. Preserved: semantics
>    - Dialectical variants. Preserved: semantics
>    - Explicative variants. Preserved: extensional semantics (not
>    intensional)
>    - Semantic variants. Preserved: partial semantics
>
> As such I would go for splitting up the categories as follows
>
> *Group 1a. Orthographic variants*
>
>    - Historical Orthographic variants. e.g., different scripts such as
>    for Azeri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijani_alphabet)
>    - Geo-orthographic variants. e.g., "localize" vs. "localise"
>    - Semantic-orthographics variants. e.g., "取る" (toru - "to take (remove
>    from a location)") vs "撮る" (toru - "to take (a photo)")
>
> *Group 1b. Inflectional variants*
>
>    - Pluralization, verb form inflection, comparatives and superlatives
>    - Synthesis (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_language)
>
> *Group 1c. Morphosyntactic Variants*
>
>    - Rephrasing: e.g., "cancer of the mouth" vs. "mouth cancer"
>    - Derivation (e.g., Nominalization): e.g., "lexicon", "lexical",
>    "lexicalize"
>    - Pleonasm: "tuna" vs "tuna fish"
>    - Abbreviation: e.g., AIDS..... Philipp> Any variation has some
>    (sight) pragmatic implication, abbreviation for me is morphosyntactic as
>    the motivation is brevity rather than connotation.
>
> *Group 2a. Pragmatic Variants*
>
>    - 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)
>
> *Group 2b. Circumlocutive variants*
>
>    - explicative variants (immigration law and law for regulating and
>    controlling immigration)
>
> *Group 3. Non-synonymous variants*
>
>    - Modification: "MRSA", vs "hospital-acquired MRSA"
>    - Hypernym/Hyponymy/Antonymy
>    - Cross-lingual narrowing/broadening: "river" vs "rivière/fleuve"
>
>
>  Does this sound sensible or did I miss something?
>
>  Regards,
> John
>
>   On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 9:56 PM, lupe aguado <gac280771@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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>
>>
>>> 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 <%2B49%20521%20106%2012249>
>>> Fax: +49 521 106 12412 <%2B49%20521%20106%2012412>
>>> Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>>>
>>> Room H-127
>>> Morgenbreede 39
>>> 33615 Bielefeld
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> «Null hull,» sa Harry    | – Bögga? sagði Erlendur. Er það orð?
> (Jo Nesbø: Kakerlakkene) | (Arnaldur Indriðason: Mýrin)
> --
> Lars Borin
> Språkbanken • Centre for Language Technology
> Institutionen för svenska språket
> Göteborgs universitet
> Box 200
> SE-405 30 Göteborg
> Sweden
>
> office +46 (0)31 786 4544
> mobile +46 (0)70 747 8386
> <http://språkbanken.gu.se/personal/lars/> <http://språkbanken.gu.se/personal/lars/>
>
>