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

R: WordNet modelling in Lemon and SKOS

From: Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 17:15:43 +0200
Message-ID: <517948a1.5597cc0a.47eb.ffffc1d6@mx.google.com>
To: Alessandro Oltramari <aoltrama@andrew.cmu.edu>, John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Cc: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>, Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Hi Alessandro,

If you are for keeping both A and B types in OntologyEntity (and keeping the difference between these models implicit)  then we not only partially, but totally agree.
No issue with Targteblabla...that was just a label...the class in that box is actually owl:Thing as there is no restriction on the specific class of target conceptual entities (these can be props, indivs, classes, skos:Concepts), so agree with u here too.
And your research works were among those I had in mind when I said that there's a large need for connecting pure meaning entities from lex resources (such as wordnet synsets) to ontologies (and also to concept schemes..), thus in such cases preferring the lexentry lexconcept ontentity path over the lexentry lexsense ontentity one (though both can happily live together, providing all the 4 elements are properly represented and distinguished).

----- Messaggio originale -----
Da: "Alessandro Oltramari" <aoltrama@andrew.cmu.edu>
Inviato: ‎25/‎04/‎2013 16.09
A: "John McCrae" <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Cc: "Aldo Gangemi" <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>; "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>
Oggetto: Re: WordNet modelling in Lemon and SKOS

Hi all,

having just started to actively participate to the community group, it's not easy for me to keep the pace of the most advanced discussions. But I'm trying :) 

My concern - and sorry if I'm raising a sort of meta-level issue here - is more on the usability of the model: as a matter of fact, we want this model to be adopted and shared in the semantic web community. If this is our goal we need to find a trade-off between simplicity and comprehensiveness. 

In this sense, I think that the model that Armando sent on April 23rd is very clear, though I'm in favor of substituting the node "Target Conceptual Model" with OntologicalEntity, as suggested by Aldo. OntologicalEntity would cover  A) and B) types of conceptual model;  I'd also suggest to keep the difference between A) and B) implicit. 

My two cents,

On Apr 25, 2013, at 5:22 AM, John McCrae wrote:

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).


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:


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.




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
Fix the model as a four element path (sense/lexConcept/conceptualizes) and drop other properties (e.g., reference)
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:


* 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:


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


the ones you propose are fair enough I think.


* 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:











Among the ones you propose, "antonymy" is certainly wrong (holds between senses, not synsets), ok for the others.


* 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.


* 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




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?


Da: Aldo Gangemi
Inviato: 24/04/2013 00.28

A: Armando Stellato
Cc: Aldo Gangemi; 'John McCrae'; 'Philipp Cimiano'; 

[il messaggio originale non è incluso]
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2013 15:16:17 UTC

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