- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 12:12:04 +0200
- To: Alessandro Oltramari <aoltrama@andrew.cmu.edu>
- CC: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@gmail.com>, John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, Guido Vetere <gvetere@it.ibm.com>, "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <51CD6174.9020404@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Dear all, I am fine with the "contains" essentially. More on the telco this afternoon. Philipp. Am 27.06.13 17:06, schrieb Alessandro Oltramari: > Dear All, > please find below my two cents on the recent issues. > On Jun 27, 2013, at 10:26 AM, Philipp Cimiano wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I see three issues to be discussed tomorrow: >> >> 1) commitsTo (in which direction to use it?); actually, given the >> discussion that we had about this, I would propose to replace it by >> something less controversial > > I lost track of who said what, but I agree with the position according > to which the commitsTo relation has domain Lexical Concept and range > Ontology Entity. > As far as I can remember from my old frequentation with Nicola :) this > is the standard interpretation. I've just recovered a couple of > statements I made in Ph.D. thesis (back in 2006). One is general, the > other one is about GUM model: > > /"the role played by an ontology is to allow us to make explicit the > intended meaning of a vocabulary and to represent > the commitment of a language toward a certain conceptualization of the > world."/ > > /"Generalized Upper Model results from the enhancement of Penman Upper > Model [12]. It deals with the semantics of lexicogrammatical concepts > like ‘being&having’, ‘saying& sensing’, ‘participant’, ‘process’, and > so on and so forth: the first structure, for example, can instantiate > a relation of identity (“John is Peter’s father”), possession > (“Mary has a new cloth”), attribution (“Homer is dumb”). The > elements of GUM can be conceived as intermediate concepts between the > language and its/ > /ontological commitments."/ > > >> 2) evokes Relation: how to name it, please make up your mind > > What about "exemplifies"? > >> 3) subsumes: that was meant by mean as sth. like "contains" indeed. I >> agree with John's statement. The LexicalSense is a particular sense >> of a word and the other (Lexical Concept) is a collection of lexical >> senses. A single lexical sense can not be a collection of senses at >> the same time, right? A singleton set is clearly a set, but an >> element can not be a set, it is contained in it. > > What about "contains"? >> >> Btw. we can not use refers between Lexical Entry and Lexical Concept. >> We have always said that "reference" should have an extensional >> object as range. Lexical Concepts are not extensional. > > Agreed. > > Best, > > Alessandro >> >> I feel that if we fix these things we are mostly done with the core >> model. >> >> I will add some definitions to the ontology axioms and definitions >> tonight to the ontology and send it around for tomorrow. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Philipp. >> >> Am 26.06.13 00:23, schrieb Aldo Gangemi: >>> Dear John, I simply assumed the "subsumes" relation as the inverse >>> of subClassOf, as with the typical meaning of subsumption. In that >>> case, LexicalSense and LexicalConcept cannot be disjoint. >>> >>> Now, you're pointing to a different requirement, i.e. that the >>> meaning of one word (a word sense) is inherently different from the >>> meaning of an equivalence class (not just a collection) of words (a >>> synset). >>> However, I do not see any reason for disjointness. A lexical sense >>> can be easily seen as an extreme case of a lexical concept, where >>> the equivalence class is constituted just by one word (actually a >>> lemma). >>> In this way, the axiom <LexicalSense subClassOf LexicalConcept> is >>> perfectly valid, as well as the derivative axiom <sense >>> subPropertyOf evokes>. >>> >>> I think this view simplifies the model, but if you have >>> counterexamples or conflicting requirements, please let's discuss it. >>> >>> Aldo >>> >>> On Jun 25, 2013, at 6:35:58 PM , John McCrae >>> <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >>> <mailto:jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 <mailto: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 >>>> <mailto: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 <tel:%2B39%20%280%296%2059662137> >>>>> >>>>> Mobile: +39 3357454658 <tel:%2B39%203357454658> >>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >>>>> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>>* >>>>> >>>>> 25/06/2013 15:43 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To >>>>> Guido Vetere/Italy/IBM@IBMIT >>>>> cc >>>>> public-ontolex@w3.org <mailto: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 <tel:%2B39%20%280%296%2059662137> >>>>> >>>>> Mobile: +39 3357454658 <tel:%2B39%203357454658> >>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> *Philipp Cimiano **_<cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>_* >>>>> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> >>>>> >>>>> 25/06/2013 15:04 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To >>>>> _public-ontolex@w3.org_ <mailto: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_ <mailto: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_ <http://www.oeg-upm.net/> >>>>> Tel. (+34) 91 336 36 70 <tel:%28%2B34%29%2091%20336%2036%2070> >>>>> Fax (+34) 91 352 48 19 <tel:%28%2B34%29%2091%20352%2048%2019> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano >>>>> Semantic Computing Group >>>>> Excellence Cluster - Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC) >>>>> University of Bielefeld >>>>> >>>>> Phone: +49 521 106 12249 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249> >>>>> Fax: +49 521 106 12412 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012412> >>>>> Mail: _cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de_ >>>>> <mailto: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 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249> >>>>> Fax: +49 521 106 12412 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012412> >>>>> Mail: _cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de_ >>>>> <mailto: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 > > *_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) > > > > > > > > > > > > -- 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 Friday, 28 June 2013 10:12:34 UTC