order of senses

Armando, all,

   re point 2: on the order of senses...

Yes, according to the modelling proposed right now, this would be lost. 
However, I do not think this is a major issue as we can add this 
information to the sense objects ;-) as they are unique for a particular 
word, i.e.

forall w_1,w_2,s hasSense(w_1,s) & hasSense(w_2,s) -> w_1=w_2

Is this something we could agree on?

Philipp.

Am 15.04.13 19:41, schrieb Armando Stellato:
>
> Hi all,
>
> First of all, thanks John for providing the example: through concrete 
> examples it is easier to discuss!
>
> A few comments (the same “disclaimer” from Elena holds for me: hope I 
> didn’t miss anything from other discussions, and in case, sorry in 
> advance).
>
> 1)First of all (sorry a bit out of topic), I would ask for a 
> clarification, so that I can apply the policy to my examples too: I 
> see the “lemon:” prefix being used in many examples, and Lemon is an 
> outcome of Monnet project. Is it also the definitive name (or a 
> temporary name) we are giving to the model we are developing in this 
> community group? I’ve been using “ontolex:” as a fictitious prefix in 
> my examples, and just got “lemon” was being used by some of you, 
> because those of you working on Monnet have started right from 
> examples they already built in the original lemon. Sorry for asking 
> what seems to be trivial, but I never got any definitive statement on 
> this, so, better to realign late than never :-D
> Btw, what is written at the last row of: http://www.lemon-model.net/ 
> seems to confirm my hypothesis.
>
> ok..back to the original topic. Consider that a few of these 
> observations can actually be solved by completing the example, and do 
> not necessarily clash with it (or, at least, do not clash with what 
> has been already written, while I don’t know of what was thought for 
> the rest).
>
> 2)With respect to Wordnet (which has explicitly ordered senses per 
> word, where I think this order originates – at least for some of the 
> words – from frequencies in SemCor) the sense ordering is lost: the 
> synsets are bound to the words by means of the sole listing of values, 
> which in plain RDF is unordered.
>
> 3)This is the most important observation: the use of lemon:sense . 
> Together with lemon:reference, lemon:sense should realize the bridge 
> from lexical entries to conceptual entities (of the domain ontology). 
> Should we use it reach the conceptual entities (e.g. synsets) of the 
> lexical resource AS WELL?. In terms of black-box compatibility, as we 
> are modelling even conceptual info of lexical resources (e.g.  synsets 
> in wordnet) through some RDF language (e.g. SKOS), the thing is legal 
> (the rdfs:range of lemon:sense, providing it is wide enough, is 
> respected), still I’m not sure we want that. Shortly, I’m not sure if 
> we want to apply exactly the same 3-entities approach we are using for 
> the lexicon-ontology model, to modelling solely a lexical resource.
> Let’s make an example. We have myont: which is a domain ontology 
> (where we have the entry myont:vomit) we are enriching with lexical 
> content, possibly from wordnet. Then we have the necessity of 
> representing a direct linking between some lexical entries (which may 
> happen to be in wordnet or not) and the domain entities of myont.
> We would have thus this example, which I derived from both the WordNet 
> example, and the generic OntoLex example for enriching an ontology 
> with lexical content:
>
> <cat:v>
>                a lemon:LexicalEntry
>                lemon:sense <cat::2:29:0::>, <cat::2:35:0::> ;
> <cat::2:29:0::>
>                a lemon:LexicalSense ;
>                lemon:reference <VerbSynset76400> .
>                lemon:reference myont:vomit .
>
> Note that I’ve cut from the original example, the triples which are 
> non-useful to the discussion.
>
> Actually, in writing this revised example, I’m not even sure if the 
> two lemon:references should be put under the same sense umbrella, or I 
> should have used two different senses. This is mainly because I’m not 
> sure about the concept of “sense” here and what it represents. I see 
> potential for confusion even by looking at the Elena/John emails, as 
> she rightly asks about the use of skos:definition instead of 
> lemon:definition. While I’m not addressing here the use of a property 
> or the other, the answer by John, hinting at the fact that there could 
> be two definitions, one for a sense, and one for a synset (and 
> consider that there could be a definition for the element in the 
> ontology), makes me wonder how many levels we should have!
> Without delving too much in the appropriateness of this indirection 
> for what concerns the lexicon-ontology interface, and considering the 
> sole context of the representation of Wordnet (thus just the lexicon 
> perspective), to me the path from the LexicalEntry to the Synset is 
> too long. In wordnet we just say that a word is linked to a synset: 
> period (modulo the addition of an ordering). In particular, “sense” is 
> a relation which just tells me that synsetX is the i-th sense of word 
> Y (and there’s a many-to-many rel between words and synsets).
>
> …and this brings me back to our first discussions about the choice of 
> the term sense, when referring to the path from lexical entries to 
> ontology elements and about the nature of “elements-in-the-middle”.
> In my view (to avoid terminological problems, I focus here on the path 
> between entities, and do not name the linking properties at all, so 
> pls consider all the arrows here have properties behind, in particular 
> lemon:sense and lemon:reference), when considering a mapping between a 
> lexical resource such as Wordnet, and an ontology, I would have seen 
> such a path:
> LexicalEntry --> Synset --> OntologyResource
> where, without using WordNet, the path would have been:
> LexicalEntry --> [] --> OntologyResource
> with [] a blanknode creating this gluing between them.
> The second line is identical to what we have done until now and what 
> has been written in the examples in the “Specification of 
> Requirements/Lexicon-Ontology-Mapping”. In particular, the blanknode 
> is an instance of that element-in-the-middle (see: “Need for an object 
> between Lexical Entry and Ontology”) which still has not a name (and 
> maybe it does not need to have, see point 4 below). The first line is 
> thus my interpretation of how WordNet would have fit into that general 
> template (different from John’s example).
> So, my idea would be to not replicate the complex lexicon-ontology 
> linking inside WordNet itself, and have instead a direct linking 
> between lexical entries and Synsets, and have THEN, outside of 
> WordNet, a further link to an ontology element. If you look at the two 
> rows above (and how the WordNet case fits the general case), this is 
> pretty elegant, and does not introduce a further level of indirection 
> which appears not necessary. Plus, with this method, the link from 
> synsets to ontology elements is a necessary step to instantiate the 
> path above, while in the other case, you should introduce it as an 
> additional (and probably redundant) triple. You can see it in fact in 
> the turtle code above, which I modelled following both the general 
> example in “Specification of Requirements/Lexicon-Ontology-Mapping” 
> and John’s example on WordNet: there, VerbSynset is a separate entity 
> from myont:vomit. Actually, in that view, WordNet would become a 
> separate “ontology” which could then be mapped to a domain ontology, 
> instead of taking all the benefit of being seen as a lexical resource 
> that can be used, seamlessly within our model, to enrich a domain 
> ontology.
>
> 4)IMHO, we should coin a specific vocabulary for each element of the 
> lexicon model, and then inherit (where appropriate) from SKOS/SKOSXL, 
> to distinguish such elements which belong only to a lexical resource 
> from those of any generic KOS. In the wiki, John wonders if what I 
> called “SemanticIndex” is not a skos:Concept, and I reply: “yes it is, 
> in fact my proposal is that our vocabulary for describing lexical 
> resources can inherit from the SKOS/SKOS-XL one”. If you look at the 
> example, even John did this, as the LexicalForm is nothing different 
> from a skosxl:Label (where lemon:writtenRep could be replaced by 
> skosxl:literalForm) though it may be worth creating a dedicated class. 
> I would thus suggest:
> LexicalForm rdfs:subClassOf skosxl:Label
> but to use skosxl:literalForm instead of lemon:writtenRep
>
> maybe, in this specific case, we can even not reinvent a name, and 
> totally reuse the skosxl:Label, which after all is not so bad and 
> pretty fitting our necessities… (as it is already related to something 
> specifically thought for language).
>
> On the contrary, for LLD, I would necessarily restrict the class 
> skos:Concept to the class of elements which we expect to host things 
> like the WordNet Synset class. You can see my sample extension-point 
> above in the wiki (“Examples of Modelling in RDF (Alternative 
> approach)”), though by now mean I suggest <SemanticIndex> (that was a 
> placeholder, taken from a previous work), but in any case I think 
> “Sense” is not appropriate (lemon:sense well evokes the sense 
> relation, while I don’t like to see a class of “Senses”, that is, to 
> me being a sense is more a role in a given relationship, than a 
> intrinsic property of an object).
>
> a.While I think that a more-specific-than-skos:Concept class would be 
> welcome for Lexical Linked Data (such as WordNet), and thus put in the 
> middle of the: LexicalEntry --> ??? --> OntologyResource  template, 
> I’m not sure that the lemon:sense (first arrow) should be necessarily 
> restricted to it. John’s use of skos:Concept in the middle suggested 
> me that even a generic well-lexicalized KOS could be used for 
> providing LexicalEntries and Senses to enrich an ontology. However, 
> I’m still thinking about it…
>
> 5)Another thing which comes to my mind, quite out of the WordNet 
> example, but not without consequences for it... What should be, in 
> general, the expected modelling behaviour when we have two terms which 
> coincide, but the syntactic use of which can follow different paths?
> E.g., suppose we have a term with three senses. In the context of 
> these senses, with two of them (say 1 and 2), the term has exactly 
> identical variations (declensions for nouns pronouns and adjectives 
> and conjugations for verbs ), and maybe other information in common 
> (think about etymology!), while for the third sense, this may show 
> differences in the variations (e.g. a noun would have a different 
> plural form, or a verb has a different form in only one tense, when 
> used with that sense). Should we model them as 3 different lexical 
> units, or should we agglomerate the two identical ones into one 
> LexicalEntry, and link it to senses 1 and 2?
> This seems to be not related to modeling WordNet in the specific, 
> because variations, declinations etc.. are out of WordNet. However, 
> this may affect a model trying to reuse WordNet enriched with further 
> information… Thus it’s important when we consider how a WordNet 
> modelling could be ported inside an extended framework with no risk of 
> inconsistency.
>
> I just thought about a solution for this: if we allow for 
> skosxl:Labels to be directly attached to Synsets (or whatever it is 
> the superclass for them), and then we state the following rule:
> LexicalEntry -> lemon:canonicalForm -> skosxl:Label
> LexicalEntry -> lemon:sense -> <asynset>
> ------------------------------------
> skosxl:Label -> ???:sense (whatever it is called) -> <asynset>
>
> this would allow for the complex structure we expect in general, but 
> also allow for a more neutral fit of WordNet. In fact, instead of 
> having the third triple as inferred, for WordNet we could just 
> explicitly mention the third one, and do not put potentially 
> compromising information (which, in any case, is out of WordNet, as 
> noted by John in his reply to Elena).
> The “???:sense (whatever it is called)” could even be lemon:sense 
> itself, providing that its range is LexicalEntry+skosxl:Label.
> However, I still have to think more about that…
>
> One more thing, observation in point 2 above made me think once more 
> that we should be clearer in our objectives:
>
> Fact: since we have to model ontology-lexicon interfaces, and there 
> isn’t much out there for representing lexical info (limited to RDF, I 
> mean); we have thus to provide a model for the linguistic part, before 
> “attaching” it to the ontology part. Now, the objective could be:
>
> 1)We want to model lexical knowledge, and we give a model for this. 
> WordNet may be (in part) more fine grained than our model…no big 
> trouble, WordNet is WordNet, and our model is our model… we’ll be 
> missing those details..
>
> a.A slightly different interpretation of the above: we want to model 
> lexical knowledge, AND we decide WordNet IS the model (at least for 
> the monolingual word-description needs..I leave out FrameNet et 
> similia from this context of discussion). No big deal with other 
> alternative resources to WordNet..
>
> 2)We want to model existing lexical resources. Thus WordNet, as well 
> as other resources (maybe differently organized) are all important
>
> Obviously, there are endless colours in the middle of the above, as we 
> could be in case 1 or 2, and still think WordNet is so important that 
> it has to be fully covered (also because, in this way, Princeton could 
> decide to natively output each new release of WordNet in RDF too 
> according to our model).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Armando
>
> P.S: I’ve brought a couple of small fixes to the page: 
> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Lexicon-Ontology-Mapping#Summary_on_Requirements_on_the_Lexicon-Ontology-Mapping_.28Synthesis_by_PC.29 
> which we already discussed 2 or 3 meetings ago.
>
> *From:*johnmccrae@gmail.com [mailto:johnmccrae@gmail.com] *On Behalf 
> Of *John McCrae
> *Sent:* venerdì 12 aprile 2013 16.10
> *To:* public-ontolex
> *Subject:* WordNet modelling in Lemon and SKOS
>
> Hi all,
>
> Here is the proposed modelling of WordNet as lemon and SKOS (using 
> skos:Concept for synsets)
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Requirements/Linked_Data#Example:_WordNet_as_lemon-SKOS
>
> Any comments?
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>


-- 
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