Re: summary of state-of-play

Hi,

Quickly I agree that the commits to should be pointed from the concept to
the ontology.

Aldo suggests that "sense" is a subproperty of "evokes"... I am puzzled as
this would lead to a contradictory ontology as the range of "sense" is
LexicalSense and the "range" of "evokes" is LexicalConcept, but
LexicalSense and LexicalConcepts should be disjoint as a LexicalSense is a
particular meaning of a single word, where as LexicalConcept is the meaning
of a collection of words (i.e., a synset). We should avoid creating any
confusion between lexical sense and lexical concepts as they are quite
different objects with different roles in the lexicon-ontology model.

Regards,
John



On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear all, "ontological commitment" means that someone commits to the
> existence (in some universe of discourse) of certain entities whose type is
> given by a name. Therefore I agree with Guido here: if we have to use
> "commits to", the direction should be reversed.
> On the other hand, the notion is quite controversial and laden with
> philosophical debates about ways to establish the actual existence of
> committed entities, and I suggest we ignore it here.
> I'd just delete it: the "reference" relation is enough I guess, and can be
> assumed to hold between any kind of intensional entity and (extensionally
> seen) ontology entities.
>
> One more thing: we probably need to make "sense" a subproperty of "evokes".
>
> Aldo
>
> sent by aldo from a mobile
>
> On 25/giu/2013, at 17:19, Guido Vetere <gvetere@it.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> *<http://www.mit.bme.hu/system/files/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,
>
> 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>*<cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
>
> 25/06/2013 15:04
>
>   To
> *public-ontolex@w3.org* <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* <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*<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*<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* <http://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* <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* <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)
>
>