Re: relations about lexical entries

Sorry I think in that case I meant to merge "Relations between lexical
entries" and Lexical and linguistic properties of lexical entries"

Regards,
John

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Philipp Cimiano <
cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:

> **
> John, all,
>
>  concerning the "lexical variant an paraphrases" I had something quite
> different in mind. The requirement I had in mind here is that the lexicon
> should capture different (lexicalized) constructions for expressing one and
> the same concept or property.
>
> Take the property leaderOfGroup(X,Y). This can be expressed in very
> different ways:
>
> X leads Y
> X heads Y
> X is the leader of Y
> X is the head of Y
> X is the boss of Y
> Y's leader X
> Y's leader/head is X
>
> same for a property like artist(X,Y), which can be expressed as:
>
> Y created X
> Y is the creator of Y
> Y painted X (if it is a painting)
> X's painter/creator is Y
>
> etc. etc.
>
> This is what I meant with lexical variants and paraphrases. And I think
> this should not be conflated with your list of variants 1-3 (which I agree
> with actually ;-)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Philipp.
>
>
>
>
> Am 20.08.12 18:34, schrieb John McCrae:
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>