Re: telco tomorrow, 15:00 CET

Ciao,

On Jul 15, 2013, at 6:33:50 PM , Alessandro Oltramari <aoltrama@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

> Hi guys
> On Jul 15, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Guido Vetere wrote:
> 
>> Ciao Aldo, please find my comments below. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it> wrote on 14/07/2013 00:34:38:
>> 
>> > ... 
>> > Ah now I get you Guido. Your conceptualization is oriented to the 
>> > description of the data structure of dictionaries and lexica, rather
>> > than to the description of the ontology-lexicon domain. You want to 
>> > talk about *dictionary* entries as data structures, while in OntoLex
>> > (at least in my interpretation) lexical entries are the actual 
>> > expressions that may take part in dictionary entries (together with 
>> > senses, glosses, examples, etc.). 
>> > 
>> 
>> Good to know that my friends understand me :-) Actually, this is a very basic decision we have to take: what LexicalEntry is meant to be? From one of our latest calls, I got the impression that this concept should not be used for characterising 'tokens' (e.g. lexical occurrences into texts), but rather 'types' (e.g. lexemes) into lexical resources, such as dictionaries. To me, there's a striking difference, since you can predicate very different properties on the two kind of entities. For instance, lexical occurrences (token) are usually grammatically determined, while lexical entries in a dictionary (type) may leave many grammatical attributes open (including the 'word class', in some case). 
> 
> Absolutely: the distinction type/token impacts our model's formalization. I see lexical entries as individuals which are grammatically and linguistically instantiated, whereas types (lexemes) are not committed to any specific grammatical rendering.  

I think this was already discussed this. Anyway, I fully agree on the distinction, I am simply saying that lexemes, lexical entries, inflected forms, or lexical occurrences in context are all semio:Expressions. This generalization gives us a lot of power for linking different NLP and lexical resources. Given that, they are all different things, and can have specific properties :). 

On the other hand, I am not sure that the type/token distinction is fine enough to support all possible distinctions we need among different kinds of expressions.

Ciao
Aldo

> 
>> 
>> 
>> Kind regards, 
>> 
>> Guido Vetere
>> Manager, Center for Advanced Studies IBM Italia
>> _________________________________________________
>> Rome                                     Trento
>> Via Sciangai 53                       Via Sommarive 18
>> 00144 Roma, Italy                   38123 Povo in Trento
>> +39 (0)6 59662137                 
>> 
>> Mobile: +39 3357454658
>> _________________________________________________  
>> IBM Italia S.p.A.
>> Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI) 
>> Cap. Soc. euro 347.256.998,80
>> C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
>> Società con unico azionista
>> Società soggetta all’attività di direzione e coordinamento di International Business Machines Corporation
>> 
>> (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise above)
> 
> 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)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>