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

Ok, that looks fine to me too :).

On Jul 14, 2013, at 7:29:31 PM , Alessandro Oltramari <aoltrama@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

> I'd go (again) for not overcomplicating the model: ontolex:reference should be applicable to ow:Ontology as a whole (which is, in my opinion, an elegant solution too).
> 
> Alessandro
> On Jul 13, 2013, at 8:03 PM, Armando Stellato wrote:
> 
>> Hi Aldo,
>> 
>> Thanks a lot for the clarification! Well, to me, it really makes sense that ontolex:reference can be applicable to owl:Ontology in the same way as to any ontology entity. I would really avoid any complexification for this. After all, the (be it formally specified or not) range of obtolex:reference already includes classes, properties, skos concepts...why not ontologies too? :)
>> Da: Aldo Gangemi
>> Inviato: ‎13/‎07/‎2013 23.40
>> A: Armando Stellato
>> Cc: Aldo Gangemi; 'QUATTRI, Francesca [11901993r]'; 'Philipp Cimiano'; 'John McCrae'; public-ontolex@w3.org
>> Oggetto: Re: telco tomorrow, 15:00 CET, random talk
>> 
>> I am thinking about the relation between a sense and an entire (typically small) ontology that formalizes a gloss. In that use case, no specific ontology element is the ontolex:reference of the sense, but the whole ontology is (remember that owl:Ontology is an OWL primitive). 
>> If we accept that ontolex:reference can also hold for ontologies (not only for ontology entities), fine, otherwise we have to think about another relation.
>> Aldo
>> 
>> On Jul 12, 2013, at 11:34:36 PM , "Armando Stellato" <stellato@info.uniroma2.it> wrote:
>> 
>> > 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
>> > Tìpalo-
>> >> 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.
>> >>>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> > 
>> 
> 
> Alessandro Oltramari
> Research Associate
> Psychology Department, Carnegie Mellon University
> 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh PA 15213
> Tel.:  +1-412-268-6284  Fax.: +1-412-268-2798     Mobile: +1-412-689-1514
> Homepage: http://fms.psy.cmu.edu/member/aoltrama 
> Twitter/Skype: oltramale 
> "There’s no such thing as the unknown– only things temporarily hidden, temporarily not understood.” (Capt. J.T. Kirk)
> "To dare is to lose one's footing momentarily. Not to dare is to lose oneself." (S. Kierkegaard)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>