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

some minor issues

From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 09:22:32 +0200
Message-ID: <51E797B8.5070003@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
To: "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Dear all,

  here are some minor issues that have been raised:

1) Glosses of senses (brought up by Guido and supported by Aldo, Armando 
and Alessandro I think, the Liga Italia so too speak ;-)

Sure, senses have meanings much as lexical concepts that can be 
described via a gloss. An of course, we can define lexical relations 
between senses. Fully agreed and this is compatible with the model. I 
propose we work the details out in a "lexical semantic networks" module 
or similar.

2) Need for denotes

We need it. Of course the chain of sense o reference is sufficient, but 
as I said in many cases people would simply want to say that this lemma 
means this class/property/individual in the context of a given ontology. 
We should make this very simple to people that do not care about sense, 
reference and all that. We need an extremely simple path that is used by 
all the Linked Data crowd that will laugh at our model (and its 
technical and philosophical / linguistic complexity) anyway. Let us 
remember that most people out there are not aware of the distinctions 
that we are discussing here for most of the time. We have to be 
pragmatic here. I agree, it is not needed, but surely practical.

3) Linking to SKOS-XL

I see the possibility of declaring ontolex:Forms as subclassOf 
skosxl:Label. Note that literalForm is functional, as is 
ontolex:writtenForm. So I do not see any issues in principle with this. 
However, I do not see a lot of practical gain in this honestly. It would 
suggest that our model in some sense plays together with SKOS, while in 
my view, the intersection is actually quite low. As I said, if people 
are happy with SKOS, they should use it. If they need more than SKOS, 
they should use the ontolex model.

 From a practical point of view, if people have a SKOS model already, 
they will need to re-engineer their labels anyway, dividing them into 
proper lemmas, inflected forms etc. as all these distinctions are not 
made in SKOS. So no matter which links we create, there will be no 
simple way to import SKOS instances into ontolex instances IMHO. The 
other way is the same. One would need heuristics to map written forms of 
different kinds to prefLabels, altLabels and hiddenLabels for instances 
as the particular type of label can not be underspecified.

So my proposal is that we simply write convertors between SKOS and lemon 
which make a number of heuristic assumptions but do not formally commit 
to any relation between the models.

The other question is how to link "Lexical Concepts", which we have 
declared to be skos:Concepts, to their skosxl:Label. SKOS makes use of 
three properties: prefLabel, altLabel and hiddenLabel, but there is no 
way to underspecify this relation in my understanding.

So we could add a property chain as follows:

contains^- o sense^- form -> ontolex:label

where

skosxl:preflabel -> ontolex:label
skosxl:altLable -> ontolex:label
skosxl:hiddenLabel -> ontolex:label

However, the inferences we get from this are rather limited, because 
there might be in principle other subclasses of labels as well. Does 
anyone know how to close this in OWL so that only these three properties 
are subproperties of ontolex:labe? I am not sure how to do it or if it 
is possible.

4) Need of Lexical Concepts

Lexical Concepts are collections of senses that have a common meaning. 
By introducing this collection as a first-order citizen (a constant) we 
can cross-link to other resources where such things are first-order 
citizens as well (e.g. Wordnet were a Synset is a first-order citizen 
per excellence!).

5) Interpreting glosses to generate axioms

Very interesting, but clearly outside of the model for now. Let's skip 
this very interesting possibility for now.


Sorry for the lenghty email. I wanted to summarized the main issues and 
make some proposals, and clarify my own standpoint while doing this 
exercise ;-)

Talk to you tomorrow, 15:00 (CET).

P.S. I fear that with this email I have raised more issues than closed, 
but so be it.

-- 
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
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2013 07:23:01 UTC

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