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

Re: terminology decomposition and interpretation use case -- Re: Reminder: Telco this Friday, 3-4 pm (CET)

From: Paul Buitelaar <paul.buitelaar@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 17:22:38 +0000
Message-ID: <5097F5DE.1070007@deri.org>
To: John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
CC: public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Hi John and all, the objective of the ontolex standardization effort is 
not on patterns but on 'the representation of lexical information for 
textual identifiers of ontology concepts' where 'textual identifiers' in 
most technical ontologies mostly come in the form of multi-word or 
otherwise morphologically complex terms. Such lexical information (for 
ontology-based terminology) may be used by patterns, rules, classifiers 
or other methods which themselves are not the objective of the ontolex 
standardization effort. But they are however an important part of the 
use case definition for any ontolex standardization effort.

We will work out the use case more and report next week


Paul


On 02/11/2012 20:34, John McCrae wrote:
> I'm guessing what you are looking for are patterns like in this paper
> http://perso.limsi.fr/jacquemi/FTP/jacmin-ACL99.pdf [Table 1]
>
> I have two main criticisms about this: firstly, it seems that these
> patterns are few in number (per language) and not tied to particular
> lexical entries, but rather are syntactic rules
>
> Secondly, these rules are very unreliable... let's take your example
>
> The rule from your example is approximately N1N2"s"N3 => N1N3 für N2
>
> Firstly this could easily lead to incorrect inference... consider for
> example
>
> Dampfschifffahrtskapitän (Steam ship [trip] captain)
>
> The rule would lead to
>
> *Dampfkapitän für Schifffahrt (Steam captain for ship trips)
>
> Or worse
>
> *Dampfschiffkapitän für Fahrt (Steam ship captain for trips)
>
> Furthermore, I don't believe that the reason for choosing this pattern
> to apply has directly to do with inherent properties of the entry, for
> example
>
> Archivierungsbundesgesetz = Bundesgesetz über die Archivierung
>   (Archiving federal law = Federal law about archiving)
>
> So it seems that Bundesgesetz can at least be used with either für or über
>
> These leads me to another key problem... what are we (as OntoLex)
> standardizing? I am not aware of any existing formats for representing
> term variation patterns (unlike say lexico-semantic patterns or
> inflection patterns), therefore it is possible that this could be
> original research (albeit very interesting research) and hence not
> within the remit of this group. Paul, perhaps you can assuage these
> fears with some more concrete examples?
>
> Regards,
> John
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Paul Buitelaar <paul.buitelaar@deri.org
> <mailto:paul.buitelaar@deri.org>> wrote:
>
>     All, to finish this discussion online
>
>     We would like to emphasize the use case for an ontology-lexicon
>     model in ontology-driven decomposition and interpretation of
>     terminology.
>
>     This is already possible in the lemon model (and has been a focus of
>     pre-decessor models LingInfo & LexInfo) but we would still need to
>     make a more extensive use case for it in the context of this WG so
>     that interested parties, incl. commercial can better interpret the
>     potential use of lemon (or follow-up model) in their application
>     context.
>
>     As explained briefly in the telco today, the following German
>     example illustrates this:
>
>     '__Bundesausbildungsfoerderungsge__setz' (terminologically:
>     single-word technical term; linguistically: complex noun compound)
>     from the STW Thesaurus for Economics
>     (http://zbw.eu/stw/versions/__latest/about
>     <http://zbw.eu/stw/versions/latest/about>)
>
>     Given the STW context (= STW terms), this term/compound can be
>     decomposed (and represented in lemon) as follows:
>
>     stw:bundes, stw:ausbildungsfoerderungs, stw:gesetz
>     (federal, education support, law)
>
>     with head stw:gesetz, i.e.
>
>     [mod stw:bundes [mod stw:ausbildungsfoerderungs]] [head stw:gesetz]
>
>     where each component directs back to an STW concept
>
>     With this representation (abbreviated and more elaborate in lemon) a
>     process can derive term variants for this same concept, such as
>
>     Bundesgesetz fuer Ausbildungsfoerderung
>     (federal law on education support)
>
>
>     As said in the telco, at DERI we are happy to collaborate with
>     others on working this out in more detail and connect it with other
>     relevant use cases
>
>     Cheers
>
>
>     Paul
>
>
>     On 02/11/2012 13:14, Paul Buitelaar wrote:
>
>         Philipp, all, from DERI side we would be interested to develop a use
>         case in term analysis / decomposition - some examples from
>         German below.
>         We think this would focus discussion more on the
>         lexical/terminological
>         side of the lemon requirements.
>
>         More explanation of the examples in the telco
>
>
>         Paul/Tobias
>
>         ---------------------
>
>         example 1
>         NO_ENGLISH / Bundesausbildungsfoerderungsge__setz
>         Bundesausbildungsfoerderungsge__setz -> [stw:bundes,
>         stw:ausbildungsfoerderungs, stw:gesetz]
>
>         example 2
>         Chancengleichheit in der Bildung / Equal opportunities in education
>         decomposition: [stw:chancen, stw:gleichheit]
>
>         Bildungsungleichheit / Inequality of opportunity in education
>         decomposition: [stw:bildungs, stw:ungleichheit]
>
>         example 3
>         NO_ENGLISH / Fuer die Arbeitsplatzsuche
>         decomposition: [stw:arbeitsplatz, igerman:suche]
>
>         example 4
>         NO_ENGLISH / Bilanzierung von Fremdwährungstransaktionen
>         Fremdwaehrungstransaktionen -> [stw:fremd, stw:waehrungs,
>         stw:transaktionen]
>         Fremdwaehrungstransaktionen -> [igerman:fremdwaehrungs,
>         stw:transaktionen]
>
>
>
>         On 30/10/2012 09:42, Philipp Cimiano wrote:
>
>             Dear all,
>
>                this is a gentle reminder for our telco on Friday, 3-4 pm
>             (CET).
>
>             The access details and agenda are available here:
>             http://www.w3.org/community/__ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,___2012.11.02,_3-4_pm_CET
>             <http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2012.11.02,_3-4_pm_CET>
>
>
>             I will prepare a document summarizing our discussion on
>             senses for the
>             meeting.
>
>             The agenda says the following:
>
>             # Discussion on naming of Path from Lexical Entry over Sense to
>             OntologyEntity (20 min.) -> Philipp to prepare
>             # Discussion of Req. 4 (Higher-Order Mappings -> John to
>             prepare a draft)
>             # Discussion on Req. 5 (Lexico-Syntactic Patterns -> Dagmar
>             to prepare a
>             draft)
>             # Discussion on Req. 6 (Metadata -> Armando to provide a draft)
>
>             Can I remind John, Dagmar and Armando to prepare some
>             material (in the
>             wiki) and present the material for a few minutes so that we
>             can have a
>             first discussion on the issues?
>
>             Thanks and talk to you all on Friday.
>
>             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:Mail%3Acimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
>
>             Room H-127
>             Morgenbreede 39
>             33615 Bielefeld
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 17:56:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:36:27 UTC