Re: summary of state-of-play

Armando, all,

  thanks, let's discuss this. I attach the latest version of the OWL 
ontology and the diagram.

Please reviews the definitions of the concepts in the ontology.

Talk to you in a few minutes,

Philipp.

Am 28.06.13 13:03, schrieb Armando Stellato:
>
> Dear all, sorry for the silence of these last days..
>
> ...I would make things more complicate by adding a few things on the 
> discussion :-)
>
> First of all, I would reply on the commitsTo. Agree on changing it.
>
> Also, a part from the fact that we may have some inverse properties, a 
> few things which I would maintain for sake of understandability and 
> ease-of-use are:
>
> 1.The directed path: Word-->Lexicalsense-->Lexicalconcept-->OntEntity 
> (so, beyond any name's choice,  we need an inverse of subsumes, and to 
> me it is more important and of common use than the opposite direction)
>
> 2.OntEntity --> LexicalConcept . (As I still imagine people willing to 
> simply decorate ontentities with lexical concepts from a resource like 
> wordnet)
>
> Now, the added things:
>
> 1.IMHO, we should be more clear about what a Lexical Concept is. While 
> I myself initially pushed for this name, as I felt this was the most 
> ideal subsumer of things like synsets, I wanted to at least try a step 
> back in understanding what is this real difference from simple 
> skos:Concept (I sent an email on 14/06), as we should motivate its 
> existence, and other "surrounding" things would come out easily..
>
> a.I read in a past email (maybe from Philipp?) that a Lexical Concept 
> is a concept which is lexicalized, but I would avoid such a 
> definition. In these terms, almost any skos dataset that I know ok, 
> would contain LexicalConcepts instead of skos:Concepts. Lexical 
> Concepts are instead a sort of semantic backbone of language. See, 
> apart from the "5 papers on WordNet", which just hints at them, also 
> [1] and [2] (in particular start of section 3 of 2, and also this 
> extract: "Rather, they are units of linguistic knowledge abstracted 
> from across usage events (i.e., utterances) that encode linguistic 
> content and facilitate access to conceptual (i.e., non-linguistic) 
> knowledge" ).
>
> b.If we feel clear any difference, then LexicalConcepts are ok (and we 
> should then understand the differences with respect to, let's say, 
> highly lexicalized conceptual structures such as Agrovoc, Eurovoc or 
> GEMET), otherwise, it is difficult to motivate their existence (that 
> is, it is not a naming problem).
>
> 2.I'm still really doubtful about "LexicalSense". I would strongly 
> vote for "Sense" alone. Almost all the literature I read on this (but 
> I'm not a linguist!) speaks about senses and it is also nn clear to me 
> what adding Lexical means. Btw, not willing to create more entropy 
> than clarifications, so if it "frozen" now, I can live with it!
>
> I'm not voting for the other properties...still thinking about them..
>
> Best,
>
> Armando
>
> [1] VYVYAN EVANS  "Lexical concepts, cognitive models and 
> meaning-construction",2006,"Cognitive Linguistics"
>
> [2] 
> http://www.vyvevans.net/On%20the%20nature%20of%20lexical%20concepts.pdf
>
> *From:*Philipp Cimiano [mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 27, 2013 4:26 PM
> *To:* Aldo Gangemi
> *Cc:* John McCrae; Guido Vetere; public-ontolex@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: summary of state-of-play
>
> 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
> 2) evokes Relation: how to name it, please make up your mind
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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  <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
>   
> Room H-127
> Morgenbreede 39
> 33615 Bielefeld


-- 
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