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

RE: telco tomorrow, 15:00 CET, random talk

From: Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 16:51:21 +0200
To: "'QUATTRI, Francesca [11901993r]'" <francesca.quattri@connect.polyu.hk>, "'Philipp Cimiano'" <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Cc: "'John McCrae'" <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, "'Aldo Gangemi'" <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>, <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003201ce7f0f$46b81830$d4284890$@info.uniroma2.it>
Hi Francesca,

in replying to Guido - who was advocating the possibility of linking glosses
to different entries (LexicalSenses, or LexicalConcepts) - I said: "you are
right Guido, as there are lexical resources which have no notion of
LexicalConcept, think about Dictionaries (either bilingual or monolingual)
which just have entries, and sense-separated descriptions, which may contain
morphological variations, synonyms (translations for bilingual
dictionaries), glosses etc..". Thus in Dictionaries, there are just lexical
entries, and their descriptions which are sense-separated, but there is no
gluing object for senses. There is even no guarantee that two senses of two
lexical entries, which ideally collapse into a same meaning
(LexicalConcept), have the same gloss, because these are handled separately
in the descriptions of the two lexical entries (though, hopefully, the two
glosses will provide very similar descriptions :-) ). For these resources,
IF we want to represent them, there is no choice but allowing for glosses to
be attached to LexicalSenses.

My suggestion was to use the metadata, to understand which kind of lexical
resource we are dealing with, and thus know in advance where the glosses (if
any) are attached to.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: QUATTRI, Francesca [11901993r]
> [mailto:francesca.quattri@connect.polyu.hk]
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 3:47 PM
> To: Philipp Cimiano
> Cc: John McCrae; Aldo Gangemi; public-ontolex@w3.org
> Subject: RE: telco tomorrow, 15:00 CET, random talk
> To keep up with tonight's discussion:
> I agree with Guido's note on different meanings for a same lexical entry:
> occurs in one language and of course particularly across languages: I have
> practical reference for Guido's example "dog-Hund", but for instance the
> Chinese entry of 'dog' should include, apart from "domesticated animal",
> "edible animal", since dogs are commonly eaten.
> Citing Armando: "Sometimes senses are not factorized on the WN glosses" -
if I
> got it right, can you give us an example?
> F.
> ________________________________________
> From: QUATTRI, Francesca [11901993r]
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 9:29 PM
> To: Philipp Cimiano
> Cc: John McCrae; Aldo Gangemi; public-ontolex@w3.org
> Subject: RE: telco tomorrow, 15:00 CET, random talk
> Hi and sorry for the bad Skype connection.
> Here it comes again.
> F.
> ________________________________________
> From: QUATTRI, Francesca [11901993r]
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 9:06 PM
> To: Philipp Cimiano
> Cc: John McCrae; Aldo Gangemi
> Subject: RE: telco tomorrow, 15:00 CET, random talk
> Was playing around with the model. Thanks Philip for the example.
> Take the following as a random talk about the many implications or
> that can derive from it.
> Let's assume sb is not looking for the French puddle, but starts from
'dog' as
> point of discussion and tries to derive analogies across languages from
> inflections.
> Let's assume we look for a mapping of 'dogged' (stubbornly relentless,
> persistent):
> we find similar concepts in other languages (perse2ve2rance, obstination
> perseverante, ostinato -it; hartnaeckig, verbissen- de > interestingly:
> from Biss - bite; hartnaeckig / probably from Nacken - back, lit. hard
back >
> similar expression in It: "avere le spalle forti" /lit. to have strong
> Let's go for "to be dogged" (e.g. to be dogged by an illness) We have the
> concept of 'persecution' in at least four languages:
> *ser maltratado por/ser castigado por/ser perseguidado por (Sp) *verfolgt
> (Ge) (to be persecuted) *zhe2mo (persecution, torment)(Ch); wei3sui2 (lit.
> behind") versus the normal gou3 ("dog") *perseguitato, maltrattato (It)
> Let's look for a collocation with the word, e.g. "to dog around": Here we
have at
> least two meanings.
> 1.to work hard 2. to cheat on sb (dogging, slang: a woman picking up men
> random)
> if we go for adj. plus word (e.g. top dog), we also get another new
meaning (in
> this case: the leader or chief of a group). Interestingly, in German we
> have the dog but the deer or stag to denote the concept (Platzhirsch).
> ________________________________________
> From: Philipp Cimiano [cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de]
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 3:36 AM
> To: public-ontolex@w3.org
> Subject: Re: telco tomorrow, 15:00 CET
> Sorry, I forgot the diagram with the example.
> Apologies,
> Philipp.
> Am 11.07.13 21:33, schrieb Philipp Cimiano:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > John sent around a link to the current version of the model early this
> > week:
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/OntoLex_Core_Model
> >
> > I attach an illustrative example to this mail that shows how the model
> > would put into action. Hope this helps.
> >
> > Tomorrow we will have our regular telco at 15:00 (CET).
> >
> > I will ask everyone on the telco to raise final issues with the model.
> > If there are no issues, we will then start the voting procedure
> > involving the whole list.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Philipp.
> >
> --
> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
> Semantic Computing Group
> Excellence Cluster - Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC) University
> 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
>         Disclaimer:
> This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information
> intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the
> recipient, you should delete this message and notify the sender and the
> University immediately. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
> or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful.
> The University specifically denies any responsibility for the accuracy or
> of information obtained through University E-mail Facilities. Any views
> opinions expressed are only those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
> represent those of the University and the University accepts no liability
> whatsoever for any losses or damages incurred or caused to any party as a
> result of the use of such information.
Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 14:51:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:36:33 UTC