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

Hi Lupe, my German example was only meant to illustrate how lexical 
information for ontology terms can be used (in term variant generation 
in this case). Examples for Spanish will of course work differently, but 
this is not part of the ontology lexicon format. Any 
rules/patterns/classifiers/other are outside of the format but can 
access lexical information for ontology terms (in a standardized format) 
to apply in a variety of use cases - of which term variant generation is 
just one.


Paul


On 05/11/2012 18:29, lupe aguado wrote:
> Hi, Paul, all
>
> I agree that we have to investigate on the representation of lexical
> information for textual identifiers of ontology concepts, but the
> example in German was not applicable to Spanish texts. At least in most
> cases, we cannot apply the same rules. Maybe I did not understand it
> well, because we did not have time.
> Paul, do you mean to extract the conceptual relation from the lexical
> infromation?
> This topic also interests us.
>
> Lupe
>
>
>
> 2012/11/5 Paul Buitelaar <paul.buitelaar@deri.org
> <mailto:paul.buitelaar@deri.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
>         <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>
>         <mailto: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>
>              <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>
>
>
>         <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> <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%__2012249>
>                      Fax: +49 521 106 12412
>         <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012412> <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%__2012412>
>         Mail:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-____bielefeld.de
>         <mailto:Mail%3Acimiano@cit-ec.uni-__bielefeld.de>
>                      <mailto:Mail%3Acimiano@cit-ec.__uni-bielefeld.de
>         <mailto:Mail%253Acimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>>
>
>
>                      Room H-127
>                      Morgenbreede 39
>                      33615 Bielefeld
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 17:10:16 UTC