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 23:34:36 +0200
To: "'Aldo Gangemi'" <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>
Cc: "'QUATTRI, Francesca [11901993r]'" <francesca.quattri@connect.polyu.hk>, "'Philipp Cimiano'" <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, "'John McCrae'" <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006801ce7f47$9c4fbcc0$d4ef3640$@info.uniroma2.it>
Hi Aldo. I was thinking about that too (in terms of "is it the case to think
of some axiom for bringing a lexicon glosses automatically to the
ontology?"), though actually I'm not sure if I understood the exact property
you are speaking about.
Currently, we already have a property for linking senses directly to
ontology entities (ontolex:reference).
So maybe you were considering having a direct link from glosses of the
senses to the ontology elements ontolex:referenced by these senses? ...and
in case, having it automatically inferred through an axiom?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aldo Gangemi [mailto:aldo.gangemi@cnr.it]
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 8:27 PM
> To: Armando Stellato
> Cc: Aldo Gangemi; 'QUATTRI, Francesca [11901993r]'; 'Philipp Cimiano';
'John
> McCrae'; public-ontolex@w3.org
> Subject: 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 21:35:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 10:57:30 UTC