- From: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:29:57 +0200
- To: John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Cc: Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>, Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAO4q9KHYJ4xqgQ8_NXd9qu6ub84gO0wUwcpORcLaYU7kj47fmg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi, On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:10 AM, John McCrae < jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am glad we are close to an understanding :) > > I agree that WordNet's synset could be a subclass of a Lexical Concept > class, however might it not make more sense (especially with respect to > dissemination) to just call it Synset? > > Note: LexicalSense cannot be a subclass of semio:Meaning, it should be a > subtype of the tuple (semio:Expression,semio:Meaning) > I do not understand this. A class cannot be a subclass of a tuple, unless the (set of) tuple(s) is reified, and then becomes a class as well, which is what Armando intended (please confirm :)). In all cases, if you mean that a word sense is dependent on a (unique) expression and a (unique) synset, that's easily captured in OWL: ontolex:LexicalSense rdfs:subClassOf semio:Meaning . (unique expression:) ontolex:LexicalSense rdfs:subClassOf _:restriction . _:restriction rdf:type owl:Restriction . _:restriction owl:onProperty semio:expressedBy . _:restriction owl:someValuesFrom :LexiconExpression . _:restriction owl:cardinality "1"^^xsd:NonNegativeInteger . (unique synset:) ontolex:LexicalSense rdfs:subClassOf _:restriction1 . _:restriction1 rdf:type owl:Restriction . _:restriction1 owl:onProperty wordnet:inSynset . _:restriction1 owl:someValuesFrom wordnet:Synset . _:restriction1 owl:cardinality "1"^^xsd:NonNegativeInteger . An alternative design pattern can be applied by defining new owl:FunctionalProperty(ies) that are subproperties of e.g. semio:expressedBy and semio:inSynset. > > I would however be strongly in favour of having the following path still > in the model: > > LexicalEntry --sense--> LexicalSense --reference--> (OntologyEntity)* > > The primary reason for this is simply to allow for backwards compatibility > with the current lemon model. > > Furthermore, I think that the distinction Aldo makes between type A and > type B modelling requirements is valid and important. In particular, it > seems that type A modelling will involve not using an ontology entity > (using a three-element path like below) and type B modelling will not use > LexicalConcept (using a path as above). > > LexicalEntry --sense--> LexicalSense --lexConcept--> LexicalConcept > > There is another option as well a type AB modelling where there is both > intensional and extensional modelling, or more commonly someone wishes to > link a type A resource to a type B resource. So we need a link between the > Lexical Concept and the Ontology Entity (as exists in all proposals). > > LexicalConcept --conceptualizes--> (OntologyEntity) > > However, this has a drawback, in that it allows equivalent paths in the > model namely sense/reference and sense/lexConcept/conceptualizes. This > makes the model harder to apply and brings back the discussion of Philipp's > shortcut property between LexicalEntries and OntologyEntity. Therefore > there are two options > > 1. Fix the model as a four element path > (sense/lexConcept/conceptualizes) and drop other properties (e.g., > reference) > 2. Allow for ambiguity in the expression of the ontology-lexicon > connection (in fact Philipp's shortcut would now be 'denotes' in my > proposal) > > While I don't like either option I would have to admit that 2 is probably > better > > The second clear issue that comes from this modelling is to do with the > levels of annotation/linking. By which I mean that we need to be clear in > the model which annotations & relationships belong should be part of the > LexicalSense vs. LexicalConcept vs. OntologyEntity > > My guess is the following holds: > > LexicalSense > ------------ > > * Register > * Translation > * Sense examples > * (Some) selection restrictions (e.g., 'gehen'/'fahren'@de... > 'ageru'/'kureru'/'kudasaru'@ja-Latn) > > The following relations were already assigned domains and ranges based on WordNet assumptions in the WordNet-OWL schema: wnschema:WordSense (or some subclass) is the domain and range of the following properties: antonymOf derivationallyRelated participle adjectivePertainsTo adverbPertainsTo the ones you propose are fair enough I think. > LexicalConcept > -------------- > > * Anotnymy > * Hypernymy/Hyponymy (?) > * Quality models (e.g., 'big' vs 'huge') > * Gloss/Definition (?) > > wnschema:Synset (or some subclass) is the domain and range of the following properties: attribute causes classifies entails instanceOf meronymOf hyponymOf sameVerbGroupAs similarTo gloss Among the ones you propose, "antonymy" is certainly wrong (holds between senses, not synsets), ok for the others. > OntologyEntity > -------------- > > * Formal super/subclassing > * Domain/Range restrictions > * Axioms > * Gloss/Definition (?) > > These ones are ok, but I do not see why we should include them in the OntoLex model, since they are already defined in RDFS, OWL, etc. I imagine there can be requirements for that, e.g. to gather a meta-model of OWL, but they already exist. For example, NeOn project produced plenty of such meta-models, we should not reinvent the wheel. Regards, > John > > PS. > * The naming of the OntologyEntity class is technically irrelevant as it > cannot be an owl:Class as object properties, data properties and > individuals (as well as datatypes and sets) are valid so it is best that > formally it's name is simply omitted. > > I do not understand this sentence, maybe some typo. If you mean that any element in the semio:Reference (or at least in the ontolex:OntologyEntity, or in your "omitted" class) class results to be an individual, and therefore is rdf:type owl:Thing, then I can agree; even in case of classes and properties as references, they would be punned as individuals. Ciao Aldo > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Armando Stellato < > stellato@info.uniroma2.it> wrote: > >> Hi Aldo, >> >> Fine. Actually since the naming of concepts was still to be assessed, and >> since in some cases we could have been reusing specific classes from >> existing vocabularies, I used that informal labeling in the upper part of >> the boxes for clarifying their role, and an explicit reference to the >> proposed class in the lower one. >> Thus "target conceptual model" was intended to capture actually elements >> of possibly different models (and in fact the least subsuming class is >> owl:Thing) so I confirm your hypothesis. >> I must admit I only grasp partially the reason for which we should >> consider differently type-A and type-B models. My perspective, wrt, for >> instance, the triangle of Meaning, is that in-any-case what we formally >> write are still symbols (progressively richer in their description ), >> which are then translated into references in our mind which refer to >> referents in the world. >> And in this sense a synset, for instance, is still a symbol which, thanks >> to the set of synonyns in it, and the gloss etc.. better drives the access >> to a reference in our minds than a single word. In terms of Sinn and >> Bedeutung, an owl:Class has intensional properties as much as a >> skos:Concept has, plus it may restrict (through a set of formal >> constraints) its extension, the interpretations of which, however, are >> still infinite. In this sense, Words, skos:Concepts, owl:Classes are all >> "expressions", and referents are totally out of our representation game. >> Thus, any meaning/reference distinction is not really clear to me. Much the >> same way, how would u consider an owl:Individual wrt a skos:Concept (well >> actually a concept is an individual in owl terms..) Are not them both >> purely intensional objects? >> However, I may be easily wrong in that, and will not delve further in the >> discussion, so one practical question: >> Suppose I've a domain concept scheme (e.g. Agrovoc) and a >> "conceptualized" lexical resources such as WordNet. Beyond any possible >> linking to meaning/reference etc.. would you see it as possible to have >> some form of "tagging" of the domain concept scheme with wordnet's synsets, >> where it is clear (in ontolex) that the synsets are not (only) mere >> skos:Concepts (thus to be mapped through ordinary mapping relation, eg from >> skos) and are instead lexical objects (instances of LexicalConcept in >> particular) which can be used to enrich the domain concepts? >> >> Cheers, >> Armando >> >> ------------------------------ >> Da: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it> >> Inviato: 24/04/2013 00.28 >> A: Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it> >> Cc: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>; 'John McCrae'<jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>; >> 'Philipp Cimiano' <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>; 'public-ontolex'<public-ontolex@w3.org> >> >> Oggetto: Re: WordNet modelling in Lemon and SKOS >> >> Hi Armando, John, all, >> >> On Apr 23, 2013, at 11:19:48 PM , "Armando Stellato" < >> stellato@info.uniroma2.it> wrote: >> >> Dear John,**** >> >> After seeing your updated scheme, I think we are almost there. I had a >> short call with Aldo for checking the only one thing I was a bit uncertain >> of in his email (the double subclassing he proposed for WordNet’s >> WordSense/Synset under the ontolex:LexicalSense umbrella).**** >> I’m resuming a few points here, and I ask Aldo to confirm if I’m properly >> reporting what we discussed (obviously I’m cutting most of the conversation >> and report only the main questions and where we ended up). >> >> >> thanks for the summary :) >> >> **** >> >> Armando: Why both wn:WordSense and wn:Synset subclasses of LexicalSense?* >> *** >> Aldo: they are both a form of Meaning. These can be totally disjoint >> classes as u said in your email, still being under the same superclass.** >> ** >> Armando: Ok, let’s go back to the linking to semiotics.owl… ok for both >> wn:WordSense and wn:Synset under semio:Meaning…they are both a form of >> meaning (thus both rdfs:subClassOf semio:Meaning) and I agree… but then, >> the engineer in me tells: <ok, this is a proper “tagging”, but how can >> these be used operatively?> I mean, ok for the general Meaning class in >> semiotics.owl, but LexicalSense cannot be an Umbrella for both too…our >> ontolex model should be general enough to cover different resources, and >> specific enough to cover in detail the most important aspects of them. To >> me, I would like WordNet to be opaquely handled by agents as an instance of >> a Lexical Resouce modeled in OntoLex. I’m thinking about some of the use >> cases, where smart agents covering given tasks (such as Ontology Mapping) >> may benefit of the implicit perspective on WordNet given through OntoLex >> glasses (a monolingual resource, with a conceptual structure etc…), and can >> adapt this sort of “ontolex fingerprint” of the resource into their general >> mapping strategies (this is also where the metadata part of the language >> will come into play). “Plugging” another resource should work as well, as >> much as its content can be seen through a proper mapping inside the OntoLex >> vocabulary. >> So I suggest to make explicit in our model the existence of “Senses of >> LexicalEntries”, let’s call them LexicalSense or just Sense (e.g. >> specifically, a superclass of WordSenses in wordnet) and LexicalConcepts >> (specifically, a superclass of synsets in WordNet). Then I agreed that both >> Sense and LexicalConcept are tagged (subClassOf) as (different types of) >> Meanings, for the purpose of properly representing them under the Triad in >> semiotics.owl**** >> Aldo agrees on having these two distinct elements in OntoLex too, and >> bound them under the common umbrella of semio:Meaning. >> >> >> Confirmed. I have no issue about creating intermediate classes >> whatsoever, provided we all agree on the intuition about expressions, >> (intensional) meanings, and (extensional) references. >> >> Concerning the diagram, I'm ok with links and names. >> >> My only observation is about "TargetConceptualModel" (not really >> discussed with Armando): if that is a class of conceptual models (as the >> name suggests), why should it be a subclass of Reference. I'd call it >> better OntologyEntity (as Lemon does, as well as LRI, the multilingual >> ontolex model made in NeOn project in 2008), and put a link between >> OntologyEntity and the ontology that defines it. >> However, maybe you want to talk about arbitrary conceptual models and >> their elements. For this I think we need some more clarification, because >> there are two types of conceptual models: >> >> A) purely intensional conceptual models, like SKOS models, classification >> schems, thesauri, synsets, lexical frames, etc. >> B) formally interpreted conceptual models, like ontologies, ER schemas, >> UML class diagrams (under ER-like semantics), etc. >> >> For type-A conceptual models, I am still recalcitrant to accept their >> elements as references, since no clear extensional intuition is granted, >> except under a sort of "stipulation" by which I accept the risks of >> interpreting them extensionally (old SKOS did that by having skos:Concept >> as both rdfs:subClassOf owl:Thing and of rdfs:Class). I think no default >> extensional choice like that should be made. >> >> For type-B conceptual models, we can safely adopt the extensional >> interpretation. >> >> Now, since this community group works under the semantic web and linked >> data umbrella, I do not see the necessity of forcing our model to deal with >> debatable choices wrt type-A conceptual models, which can be instead >> interpreted in the context of the Meaning class (that's because I put >> skos:Concept as a subclass of semio:Meaning). >> >> I won't be able (last time hopely) to attend Friday's telco, but will be >> active in the email discussion. >> Ciao >> Aldo >> >> **** >> >> I’m attaching (and reporting here below) an updated version of the model >> I sent in my last email, with the mapping to Semiotics.owl which followed >> the discussion with Aldo. As you may see, it is pretty similar to the last >> one you sent (modulo naming choices and the double linking to >> semio:Meaning).**** >> Regarding chosen names, just a couple of comments:**** >> >> 1) I suggested, as a OntoLex superclass for Synset, the name >> Lexical Concept (ref. Miller’s paper, where he defines synsets as a form of >> “Lexical Concepts”). This captures the idea of a given set of >> LexicalEntries hinting at a (non explicit nor formally defined) concept. >> Note (not in the figure) that this LexicalConcept may be a subclass of >> skos:Concept. An alternative could be “LexicalizedConcept”, though the >> former one surely sounds better :-)**** >> 2) Conversely, for the other class reifying the sense relationship, >> I’m not sure about the appropriateness of the name LexicalSense, as in this >> name “Lexical” seems an adjective of “Sense”. But, IMHO, it is not. >> LexicalSense is more specifically the sense of a given Lexical Entry. Thus >> the proper name should be LexicalEntrySense (in fact, in WordNet - limiting >> lexical entries to be words - we have the class WordSense). However >> LexicalEntrySense is rather long and ambiguous to be parsed. Other choice >> could be SenseOfLexicalEntry (rather ugly), or simply (my preference), >> Sense. Btw, just my small note on that and absolutely can be left as is…but >> I really cannot grasp the meaning of such an expression. Simply, the step >> from the expression “LexicalSense” to its intended meaning of “Sense of a >> Lexical Entry” to me is not intuitive.**** >> 3) I chose the ontolex:sense property to go from LexicalEntry to >> LexicalConcept. To me it is intuitive, as (grounding to WordNet, for >> instance), the sense of a Word lies in its linking to a Synset (or in >> general, to a unit of meaning). And then we can reify this relation into a >> Sense class as there can be many important things to say about it. However, >> I understand that following ontology modelling conventions, one could >> expect the ontolex:sense property to link to instances of a Sense class… so >> open to opinions (and proposals) for this property renaming. Even those >> from John’s last model could be reasonable.**** >> Cheers,**** >> Armando**** >> >> <image005.png>**** >> >> >> >> *From:* johnmccrae@gmail.com [mailto:johnmccrae@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of >> *John McCrae >> *Sent:* venerdì 19 aprile 2013 10.44 >> *To:* Armando Stellato >> *Cc:* Aldo Gangemi; Philipp Cimiano; public-ontolex >> *Subject:* Re: WordNet modelling in Lemon and SKOS**** >> ** ** >> Hi,**** >> ** ** >> While Aldo's model is very elegant it is not possible to have lexical >> sense as a subset of skos:Concept for a simple reason: the lexical sense is >> defined for only a single lexeme, while the skos:Concept can be used for >> multiple lexemes.**** >> ** ** >> For this key reason we need to have a "lexical sense" object that is >> between the lexical entry and its meaning. If you are uncomfortable with >> this object then you can view it as a simple reification (although I would >> contend it is a very real object). In fact this is nothing more than the >> traditional lexicographic "word sense", see >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_sense.**** >> ** ** >> I rename the "lexical sense" object of Aldo's model to "concept" or >> following WordNet a "synset"**** >> ** ** >> >> >> [il messaggio originale non è incluso] >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2013 15:30:30 UTC