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

Re: WordNet modelling in Lemon and SKOS

From: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:29:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CAO4q9KHYJ4xqgQ8_NXd9qu6ub84gO0wUwcpORcLaYU7kj47fmg@mail.gmail.com>
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>

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:

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

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.

> 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.


> 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

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