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

Hi all, sorry for today. 
This is interesting; actually sometimes I pointed out that glosses are actually senses, though expressed verbosely and not with clear cut identifiers.

Anyway, when representing the structure of a traditional dictionary, we need to create identifiers for different senses of a lemma, and at that point, the gloss can be attached to sense identifiers through the gloss datatype property. 

Once we have that, gloss analysis can be conducted, and a formal definition can be extracted that makes it explicit the ontology attached to the sense.

In such extensions (e.g. Mihalcea's or Hovy's gloss formalizations, or Těpalo-FRED RDFization of Wikipedia definitions), a special relation could link the sense (with its gloss) to the ontology formalizing it. Should such a relation should be considered in OntoLex, or left to possible extensions?

Ciao
Aldo

On Jul 12, 2013, at 4:51:21 PM , "Armando Stellato" <stellato@info.uniroma2.it> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Armando
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -----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:
> This
>> occurs in one language and of course particularly across languages: I have
> no
>> 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
> extensions
>> 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
> its
>> inflections.
>> 
>> Let's assume we look for a mapping of 'dogged' (stubbornly relentless,
>> persistent):
>> we find similar concepts in other languages (perse2ve2rance, obstination
> -fr;
>> perseverante, ostinato -it; hartnaeckig, verbissen- de > interestingly:
> verbissen
>> from Biss - bite; hartnaeckig / probably from Nacken - back, lit. hard
> back >
>> similar expression in It: "avere le spalle forti" /lit. to have strong
> shoulders)
>> 
>> 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
> von
>> (Ge) (to be persecuted) *zhe2mo (persecution, torment)(Ch); wei3sui2 (lit.
> "tail
>> 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
> at
>> 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
> don't
>> 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
> 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
>> 
>> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------
>> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
>>        Disclaimer:
>> 
>> This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information
>> intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the
> intended
>> recipient, you should delete this message and notify the sender and the
>> University immediately. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
> message,
>> 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
> quality
>> of information obtained through University E-mail Facilities. Any views
> and
>> 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 18:27:58 UTC