- From: John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:22:00 +0200
- 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>
- Message-ID: <CAC5njqrGZeTzAK5UeozF9hLktX_j4ujJuXZHz627+P3iJc-aXg@mail.gmail.com>
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