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: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:22:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC5njqrGZeTzAK5UeozF9hLktX_j4ujJuXZHz627+P3iJc-aXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>
Cc: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>, Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>, Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Hi Aldo,

Maybe we will have to agree to disagree here. But I don't get your
argument: You say "In all these cases, something stays the same: it's the
intensional meaning of "LexicalSense""... however something else also stays
the same, the set of forms that can be used to express this concept (this
is *the* distinction between LexicalSense and LexicalConcept). By that
token, does it not follow by the same argument that LexicalSense is a
subclass of semio:Expression? In fact, it is clear that a lexical sense can
be "reduced" to a lexeme (a collection of forms or LexicalEntry).

Regards,
John


On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it> wrote:

>
> On Apr 24, 2013, at 5:49:02 PM , John McCrae <
> jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Dear John,
>
> I suggest to distinguish structural vs. semantic issues. Being a tuple is
> just a structural fact: in a tuple I can represent a lot of different
> creatures: events, facts, relations, situations, truth conditions,
> functions, … but typically we do not assume that they are the same kind of
> stuff only because they can be represented as tuples, or because they are
> all reifications of a link.
>
> In other words, it's fine to say that a lexical sense is representable as
> a tuple from the universe <semio:Expression,semio:Meaning>, but it can be
> representable as well as an individual of a class, or as a function over
> expressions. In all these cases, something stays the same: it's the
> intensional meaning of "LexicalSense", which (sorry for talking semiotics
> about semiotic entities!) is a subclass of Meaning, since it is expressed
> by expressions, and/or can be the conceptualization of a (collection of)
> references. As a matter of fact, when we are sure about its extensional
> interpretation, a lexical sense can be "lifted" as an ontology class or
> individual.
>
> Aldo
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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 Thursday, 25 April 2013 09:22:30 UTC

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