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

Re: WordNet modelling in Lemon and SKOS

From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:52:18 +0200
Message-ID: <517A4042.7070009@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
To: John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
CC: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>, Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>, public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Dear all,

  actually, I am not still convinced that we really need the distinction 
between Sense and LexicalConcept, but I am happy to be convinced.

In any case, I agree with the view that:

ontolex:Sense/Lexical Sense rdfs:subClassOf semio:Meaning
ontolex:LexicalConcept rdfs:subClassOf semio:Meaning

In one of his very first emails, Aldo made the good point that a lexical 
sense is of course a type of (intensional) meaning which is specific for 
a specific word or lexeme, while a Synset or ontology concept abstracts 
from the specific words and represents the abstract meaning that all the 
words in question share. So both are "intensional meaning", but vary in 
terms of specifity.

That the meaning of a lexical sense is particular to a particular pair 
of lexeme and a lexeme-independent meaning can be captured axiomatically 
by the OWL axioms that Aldo proposed in his email. That doesn't change 
the a lexical meaning is some sort of meaning ;-)


Am 24.04.13 17:49, schrieb John McCrae:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@gmail.com 
> <mailto:aldo.gangemi@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     Hi,
>     On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:10 AM, John McCrae
>     <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>
>             Inviato: 24/04/2013 00.28
>             A: Armando Stellato <mailto:stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
>             Cc: Aldo Gangemi <mailto:aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>; 'John
>             McCrae' <mailto:jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>; 'Philipp
>             Cimiano' <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>;
>             'public-ontolex' <mailto: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
>             <mailto: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>[mailto:johnmccrae@
>>             <mailto:johnmccrae@>gmail.com <http://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]

Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
Semantic Computing Group
Excellence Cluster - Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
University of Bielefeld

Phone: +49 521 106 12249
Fax: +49 521 106 12412
Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de

Room H-127
Morgenbreede 39
33615 Bielefeld
Received on Friday, 26 April 2013 08:52:48 UTC

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