RE: Coining a specific vocabulary for synsets in the OntoLex model

Hi Philipp,

 

this one answer of mine is much shorter than the other one I just sent :)

 

The only assumption about xlabel, is that whenever one wants to reify a label (for instance, to define editorial notes on it, in FAO they are doing that for instance), it can be done through this skosxl:Label. For the rest, it is pretty agnostic wrt any modeling assumption about language.

Thus, in our case, the subcl relation with skosxl:Label:

1)      surely cannot hold with LexicalEntry (which is a wider collector)

2)      It could indeed with ontolex:LexicalForm, though from John’s reply I understand that it may not be the case as well. With respect to this, I would like to discuss about this multilabeled lexical form on some next telco, as no previous example hints at that, nor my reminiscences of the original Lemon told me that, so I’ve to understand better its consequences

3)      …or, in any case, any leaf node which holsts a final, single label, could have a relation with skosxl:Label, or eventually host an xLabel instead of a plainLiteral if its environment demands for it.

 

Cheers,

 

Armando

 

From: Philipp Cimiano [mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de] 
Sent: martedì 16 aprile 2013 11.30
To: public-ontolex@w3.org
Subject: Re: Coining a specific vocabulary for synsets in the OntoLex model

 

All,
 
  yes, I agree that we should inherit from existing vocabs as much as possible.

We could introduce something like ontolex:Synset as a subclass of skos:Concept for instance.

I am also hesitant to claim that ontolex:LexicalEntry rdfs:subClassOf skosxl:Label

I think what distinguishes our work from the SKOS model is that we do acknowledge that we are not only talking about labels but about lexical and linguistic entities that have linguistic and lexical properties. 

So I am not sure it is really the best to keep the "label" association here. After all, this exercise is all about moving beyond simple labels as used in RDF, OWL, etc. 

Philipp.

Am 16.04.13 11:19, schrieb John McCrae:

Yes I agree that we should introduce a specific name in our model for Synset. 

Firstly, the modelling proposed for WordNet is based on existing modelling (i.e. lemon (1.0) and SKOS) so hence the usage of skos:Concept

As for  a new class I am not so keen on the name SemanticIndex, I would assume that the best would simply be to call it Synset, so as to ease adoption among the wider community. Semantic index I dislike as it is for associated with Latent Semantic Indexing, and in this sense more of a signature of a concept than a concept itself.

I don't think we should explicitly say the ontolex:LexicalForm is a skosxl:Label. In fact, the lexical form represents the orthographic union of surface forms of words, that is the same form (at least according to the lemon definition, itself based directly on the LMF definition) can have multiple strings (e.g., spelling variants, version in other writing systems, pronunciations, segmentations, etc.) unlike a SKOS-XL label.

Regards,

John

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…

 

 

 






-- 
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 <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> 
 
Room H-127
Morgenbreede 39
33615 Bielefeld