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

Re: WordNet modelling in Lemon and SKOS

From: John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:49:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC5njqqmaiCgH2fgft---yRyVV2biBBQBLh18mU+snA57ipHKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>
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 5:29 PM, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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 meant that if LexicalSense is a reification of a link its type should be
Tuple<semio:Expression,semio:Meaning>, of course as OWL does not support
any kind of generic typing this is slightly irrelevant, but in systems that
do it should not in general be the case that:

Tuple<A,B> ⊑ A

Hence my understanding that the LexicalSense is not a semio:Meaning.


>
>
>
>>
>> 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
>
This should probably be on the word, although WordNet does not
differentiate different etymologies of a word, so perhaps it is allowed
here.

> 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.
>
Sure, I was not proposing to include these in the model but they are just
here for comparison.

>
>
> 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.
>
Yep, that is what I meant

Regards,
John

>
> 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 15:49:36 UTC

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