W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ontolex@w3.org > June 2012

Analysis of Senso Comune ontology w.r.t to lemon

From: John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:16:29 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC5njqq1gK_gAcp=L86p8BKjNjWXSoFLrwPpHP43nnnzbicU6g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Guido Vetere <gvetere@it.ibm.com>, Alessandro Oltramari <aoltrama@andrew.cmu.edu>, Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, Paul Buitelaar <paul.buitelaar@deri.org>, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>, public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Hi all,

I had a look into the Senso Comune. First, I hit the issue that that the
OWL files differ from Guido's presentation....

I think one of the important issues is that  "MeaningRecord" from Guido's
slides is entirely absent from the slides but there is a class called
"Acceptation" that I guess is the same class.

Next I could not find the "mapping/punning" relationship between
MeaningRecord and Meaning... instead the link between Acceptation and
Meaning is via the Expression class.

I also found it quite odd that SC has no direct relationship between Lemmas
and Words, however the Inflection class indicated that both "cat" and
"cats" would be words (hence word=>form in lemon), which then confused me
as this would lead to duplicate modelling of the canonical form of the word
(e.g., "cat" would have both a Lemma with headWord="cat"@en and a Word with
stringRealization="cat"@en)

Based on these guesses (see attached diagram for SC core model as I
understand it) I would suppose the following mapping exists:

   - sc:Dictionary = lemon:Lexicon
   - sc:Lemma = lemon:LexicalEntry: Represent that part of the dictionary
   describing this word
   - sc:Acceptation/MeaningRecord = lemon:LexicalSense: A meaning a single
   word or phrase
   - sc:Expression =~ lemon:SenseDefinition: A description of the meaning
   of a word
   - sc:Meaning =~ lemon's Reference: lemon takes a slightly different
   stance here in not mixing the ontology and lexicon (thus a referenced
   individual is not an instance of a lemon class) where as SC relies on
   categorization that are both the referenced ontology class and a
   sc:Meaning... I'm interested to here both viewpoints on the modelling here
   - sc:LinguisticForm = lemon:LexicalForm: Note here that in SC Word and
   Phrase subclass Forms where as in lemon Word and Phrase subclass
   LexicalEntry (sc:Lemma), perhaps someone from SC could comment on this?

There are also some connection that differ

   - lemon connects entries to forms (sc: lemmas to words) by means of the
   form property that has no equivalent in SC
   - SC connects forms to definitions by means of characterizes... lemon
   has no such property
   - SC connects expressions to meanings (lemon: definitions to references)
   by means of the meaning property, lemon would consider this property to be
   between senses and references (sc: acceptation and meanings). But as
   Guido's slides suggest he opposite perhaps there is no difference here

Furthermore, SC at times seems to go into much more detail hence why it is
significantly larger (133 classes, 97 properties) than lemon (31 classes,
57 properties). With lemon we split off a lot of this modelling into
another ontology called LexInfo (220 classes, 190 properties). As can be
seen from attached screen shot this covers similar ground to SC.

In summary, it seems that the models cover very similar ground and we
should definitely attempt to learn from one another :)

Regards,
John McCrae

OWL files referenced:
http://www.sensocomune.org/ontologies/SensoComune.owl
http://www.sensocomune.org/ontologies/SensoComuneLexicon.owl
http://www.sensocomune.org/ontologies/SensoComuneSemantics.owl
http://www.monnet-project.eu/lemon
http://www.lexinfo.net/ontology/2.0/lexinfo

Screenshot-10.png
(image/png attachment: Screenshot-10.png)

senso-comune-core.png
(image/png attachment: senso-comune-core.png)

Received on Thursday, 14 June 2012 13:17:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:36:24 UTC