W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ontolex@w3.org > April 2013

Re: semiotics.owl

From: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:06:11 +0200
Cc: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>, Elena Montiel Ponsoda <elemontiel@gmail.com>, public-ontolex@w3.org
Message-Id: <76BF7A5E-C097-4140-B63E-493C56BEE8A2@cnr.it>
To: Guido Vetere <gvetere@it.ibm.com>
Ciao Guido, 
I am with you (and John) in pointing at the intensional import of ontology concepts, but I think treating them as extensional objects seems more practical and cleaner, specially as a default assumption. Enumerated classes (aka "nominals") are no different under this respect, except that you have an explicit complete extension, which is not the case with regular classes due to open world assumption.
It seems that hardly a KR language allows to talk about concepts as twofold entities, i.e. with a different identity for each aspect … OWL2 punning does something, but only wrt reasoning, because the intensional and extensional aspects of a class are flattened on a same identifier.
BTW, if in OntoLex we accept (as semiotics does) to use either sense or reference properties to talk about logical constants, we should be able to inject some limited form of duplicated interpretation, at least at the interface between ontologies and lexica.

Concerning Frege, that is the most common interpretation, but I'm not sure everyone agrees. Interestingly, the translation of Bedeutung is usually "reference", and not "referent".

Aldo

On Apr 17, 2013, at 1:45:01 PM , Guido Vetere <gvetere@it.ibm.com> wrote:

> This looks like the classic distinction of Sinn vs Bedeutung (Frege), isn't it? If the range of 'referent' has to be intended extensionally (Bedeutung), then pointing a Meaning (Sinn) to an ontology concept should be better clarified, since ontology concept may still be intensional constructs, and in fact enumerated concepts like the one in John's example are not common in average ontologies.  I would say that the class supplied as 'referent' could be either intended as an extension (like in the example) or a constraint that a suitable interpretation must satisfy. 
> 
> Guido Vetere
> Manager, Center for Advanced Studies IBM Italia
> _________________________________________________
> Rome                                     Trento
> Via Sciangai 53                       Via Sommarive 18
> 00144 Roma, Italy                   38123 Povo in Trento
> +39 (0)6 59662137                 
> 
> Mobile: +39 3357454658
> _________________________________________________ 
> 
> 
> Elena Montiel Ponsoda <elemontiel@gmail.com>
> 17/04/2013 12:06
> 
> To
> public-ontolex@w3.org
> cc
> Subject
> Re: semiotics.owl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Aldo, John, all,
> 
> After reading Aldo's previous e-mail on "Re: Senses, synsets and ontology mapping in WordNet", I am not so sure I agree with the example provided by John in the wiki page, that is why I would like to ask you for clarification.
> 
> Example: The term 'G8' expresses the OWL Class G8Countries and denotes the set {Canada,France,Germany,Italy,Japan,Russia,US,UK}, which is conceptualized by G8Countries
> 
> I quote from Aldo's previous e-mail:
> Re (3):
> " 
> This is not the case when we want to link lexical or KOS meanings to typical ontologies, e.g. to myont:Vomit class. If Vomit is an OWL (or RDFS) class, its interpretation is *extensional* (a collection of things, vomiting events in the common interpretation), therefore it's fully justified to use ontolex:reference for representing this linking.
> Therefore:
>                 wordnet:wordsense-vomit-verb-1 wordnet:inSynset wordnet:synset-vomit-verb-1
>                 wordnet:wordsense-vomit-verb-1 ontolex:reference myont:Vomit
>                 wordnet:synset-vomit-verb-1 ontolex:reference myont:Vomit
> 
> "
> Aldo, if I understood this correctly, the reference relation would be established between the WordNet synset or meaning and an OWL class "myont:Vomit" in an ontology. 
> Therefore,  the expression to vomit expresses the meaning (sense or synset) corresponding to that verb
>                    the meaning (sense or synset) conceptualizes an OWL (or RDFS) class
> 
> If we extrapolate this to the G8 example, we would say that the expression G8 expresses the meaning of "a group of eight of the richest industrial countries in the world...", which, in its turn, conceptualizes the OWL Class G8Countries, that contains and denotes the set of countries {Canada,France,Germany,Italy,Japan,Russia,US,UK}, as instances. 
> 
> I would rather agree with this view, since I my interpretation of the semiotic triangle, the "Referent" corresponds to a conceptualization or ontology of a certain world. 
> In fact, I think that if we assume this view, the LexicalEntry-Sense-OntologyClass path has more sense. Could you agree with this view?  
> 
> Best,
> Elena.
> 
> 
> 
> El 16/04/2013 20:27, Aldo Gangemi escribió: 
> Hi, John has made a nice summary of semiotics.owl, and some useful questions. John, thanks for the analysis :) 
> Answers below. 
> 
> On Apr 16, 2013, at 6:45:53 PM , John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote: 
> 
> Hi Aldo,
> 
> I was trying to synthesize the semiotics.owl ontology you sent around. I made some notes here
> 
> http://greententacle.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/~jmccrae/semiotics.owl.html
> 
> I had some things I didn't fully understand
> 
> Naming of 'reference', looking at the comments it seems to be what is (from my experience) called a 'referent' in the semiotics literature. In fact, more confusingly some authors seem to use reference for meaning. I think this has confused a lot of the OntoLex discussion as in lemon we use reference as the term for the meaning in the ontology. (Honestly this is a total accident, it was originally chosen to harmonize with LMF's 'monolingual external reference', used to cite external resources for senses). 
> 
> I opted for "reference" because "referent" typically bears a realistic flavor in philosphical debates. Besides that, no problem in using "referent", as in the Ogden-Richards version of the triangle. 
> 
> 
> What is a manifestation, it has no annotations? 
> 
> Right, I should add it. A Manifestation is the material occurrence of an Expression, e.g. Dante's Comedy (Expression) can be manifested in an eBook or a paper book. The same term with similar meaning is used in FRBR vocabulary. 
> 
> 
> The model has linguistic (speech?) acts, I was wondering if there were any practical examples of how to model a speech act 
> 
> I'll add it, and yes, it's an event (type). Example: "Talleyrand said "Si cela va sans dire, cela ira encore mieux en le disant" during the Vienna Congress in 1814." 
> That is the report of a linguistic act (a declarative speech act that reports another, subtler speech act), which can be modeled as follows (in Turtle, and using a default namespace ":" for a domain ontology, full example at http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/example/talleyrandquotation.ttl): 
> 
> :lingAct_1 a :Quote . 
> :Quote rdfs:subClassOf semiotics:LinguisticAct . 
> :lingAct_1 situation:isSettingFor _:agent . 
> _:agent a agentrole:Agent . 
> _:agent :authorOf "http://dinoutoo.pagesperso-orange.fr/histo/tal1.htm"^^xsd:anyURI . 
> :lingAct_1 situation:isSettingFor :lingAct_2 . 
> :lingAct_2 a :Say . 
> :Say rdfs:subClassOf semiotics:LinguisticAct . 
> :lingAct_2 situation:isSettingFor :Talleyrand . 
> :Talleyrand a agentrole:Agent . 
> :lingAct_2 situation:isSettingFor _:time . 
> _:time :inDate "06-10-1814"^^xsd:date . 
> :lingAct_2 situation:isSettingFor _:sentence . 
> _:sentence a semiotics:Expression . 
> _:sentence ontolex:lexicalForm "Si cela va sans dire, cela ira encore mieux en le disant"^^xsd:string . 
> :lingAct_2 situation:isSettingFor _:meaning . 
> _:meaning a semiotics:Meaning . 
> :lingAct_2 situation:isSettingFor _:reference . 
> _:reference a semiotics:Reference . 
> _:reference :partOf :CongressOfVienna . 
> 
> if we know more about that quotation, we might add something more about _:meaning: 
> 
> _:meaning semiotics:relatedMeaning :Clarity . 
> :Clarity a semiotics:Meaning . 
> _:meaning :modality :needed . 
> :needed a :Modality . 
> _:meaning :inContext :InternationalTreaty . 
> :InternationalTreaty a dbpedia:Event . 
> 
> 
> Some unreferenced elements: agent, hasComponent... what is their purpose exactly? 
> 
> Those are actually references, but in other - imported - patterns (agent role, situation, cpannotationschema) 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> John 
> 
> Aldo 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Elena Montiel-Ponsoda
> Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
> Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
> Facultad de Informática
> Campus de Montegancedo s/n
> Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, España
> www.oeg-upm.net
> Tel. (+34) 91 336 36 70
> Fax  (+34) 91 352 48 19 
> 
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI) 
> Cap. Soc. euro 347.256.998,80
> C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
> Società con unico azionista
> Società soggetta all’attività di direzione e coordinamento di International Business Machines Corporation
> 
> (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise above)


Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 14:06:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:36:30 UTC