Re: summary of state-of-play from Guido Vetere on 2013-06-25 (public-ontolex@w3.org from June 2013)

From: Guido Vetere <gvetere@it.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 17:19:16 +0200
To: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Cc: public-ontolex@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF7137B050.BA891F58-ONC1257B95.004CD147-C1257B95.00543113@it.ibm.com>

Philipp,

In my view (but we may ask) Guarino et al (following Quine) talk of the
specification of the commitment for a vocabulary of predicates, which are
substantially logic-linguistic symbols (as is in the tradition of analytic
philosophy). According to authors, such a vocabulary comes with an
implicit ontology, but due to polysemy, vagueness, etc, of the linguistic
rendering, the intended models of such vocabularies should be (case by
case) specified by a set of suitable constraints. The specification of
such constraints is what they refer to as the 'formalization of an
ontological commitment'.

Now, I think that in Guarino's work, Ontology Entity and Lexical Concept
are melted together in the logic vocabulary, so we cannot draw a clear
conclusion from there. If I had to choose a direction for 'commitsTo'
between Ontology Entity, Lexical Concept, I would say that a Lexical
Concept commits to an Ontology Entity. The other way around wouldn't make
sense to me.

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
_________________________________________________

Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
25/06/2013 15:43

To
Guido Vetere/Italy/IBM@IBMIT
cc
public-ontolex@w3.org
Subject
Re: summary of state-of-play

Guido, all,

in his 1994 AAAI Paper (
http://www.mit.bme.hu/system/iles/oktatas/targyak/7412/Formalizing_Ontological_Commitments.pdf
) Guarino talks about " an ontological commitment for L" where L is a
logical language. For me, it thus seems natural to see the ontological
commitment as a "property" of language L. Under this view, it is the
vocabulary that is in the domain of the commitsTo property and the
"conceptual relation" is in the range.

But of course this is quite arbitrary. We need to define it properly I
agree.

See below...

Am 25.06.13 15:30, schrieb Guido Vetere:
Philipp,

If I remember well, the notion of 'ontological commitment' is also known
in Quine's philosophy, denoting the kind of thing that must exist in order
for an expression to denote something. If this is also our notion, then I
think that the arrow should lead from the lexical class to the ontological
one, not the other way around.

Some question about the model.

Is 'denotes' equivalent to sense°reference? If yes, it should be noted
somehow.

Yes

The relation 'subsumes' is obscure to me: is it the inverse of is-a?

No, it means that a particular lexical concept (e.g. a synset) subsumes or
includes the particular sense of a word. If you have a better way of
naming this, please say so! I feel we do not yet have the ideal name for
it. For example, a synset (as a lexical concept) includes not really a
word, but a sense of a word.
Is 'evokes' (whatever it means) related to sense°inverse-of-subsumes?

Yes, it is equivalent to sense o inverse-of-subsumes

Thank you and apologize if the answer is already there ..

Regards,

Mobile: +39 3357454658
_________________________________________________

Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
25/06/2013 15:04

To
public-ontolex@w3.org
cc

Subject
Re: summary of state-of-play

Elena, all,

well, I used "commitsTo" in the sense of Guarino in order to say that a
certain symbol in an ontological vocabulary refers to (commits to) some
conceptual relation in a conceptualization, the conceptualization being
essentially "intensional" and not directly accessible (e.g. in the head of
someone, implicit in a certain community).

I used commitTo to avoid using again something like "reference" which
would otherwise become quite overloaded.

Aldo can elaborate on this much more than me, but I hope the intuition
behind using commitsTo is clear now.

Along these lines, commitsTo can also be established between an
ontological entity (extensional) and a skos:Concept (intensional)

But I agree with Aldo that skos:Concept is the more general class and that
skos:Concepts need not be lexicalized. Under this understanding
ontolex:LexicalConcept is a subclass of skos:Concept in the sense of being
a special skos:Concept that is lexicalized.

Hope this clarifies my intuitions.

Best regards,

Philipp.

Am 25.06.13 13:40, schrieb Aldo Gangemi:
Hi Elena,

On Jun 25, 2013, at 1:19:49 PM , Elena Montiel Ponsoda <
elemontiel@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Philipp, all,

Thanks for the "state-of-play" document and the summary of the document at
http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Specification_of_Core_Model

I just went through it and in general I agree with the model proposed.
I have two comments that we may discuss on Friday.
what is the meaning of the "commitsTo" relation? Could it also be
established between an OntologyEntity and a skos:Concept?
I am not sure I fully understand the relation between LexicalConcept and
skos:Concept (sorry if you already discussed it!!). Wouldn't a
LexicalConcept be also subsuming a skos:Concept? I think a LexicalConcept
is somehow more general, am I mistaken?
Quickly: I think not. SKOS is very general and includes all sorts of
concepts, be them lexical or not.
Aldo
Talk to you on Friday!
Elena

El 21/06/2013 15:30, Philipp Cimiano escribió:
Dear all,

we had a very short meeting today. Apologies for the very late
announcement on my side. I will announce the meeting earlier next week.

In any case, we agreed that it is good that the model as it stands can
accomodate both the view of Frames as Extensional Entitites / Class (i.e.
sets of situations) and the view as intensional/cognitive Lexical
Concepts.

I feel that we need not to adopt any strong position towards any of these
ends as FrameNet has been anyway modelled by different people in OWL/RDF
already (Aldo, Alessandro, etc.) and it is certainly not the main use of
the ontolex model.

In any case, the (short) minutes from today are here:
http://www.w3.org/2013/06/21-ontolex-minutes.html

We will talk again next week at the usual time slot.

Please all read my document and inspect the OWL ontology. We will decide
on this core very soon ;-)

Have a good weekend,

Philipp.

--
Elena Montiel-Ponsoda
Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
Facultad de Informática
Campus de Montegancedo s/n
Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, España
www.oeg-upm.net
Tel. (+34) 91 336 36 70
Fax (+34) 91 352 48 19

--
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

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)

--
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

(Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise
above)

Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 15:20:06 UTC