- From: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:53:26 +0200
- To: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Cc: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>, public-ontolex@w3.org
- Message-Id: <3FED45D0-0E39-466B-9C8B-9235C2CEA73F@cnr.it>
I'm fine with this interpretation of "evokes". Also contains is ok. Sorry I have a delay in making interviews for two new positions, and I'm not sure I will be on time to participate :( Aldo On Jun 28, 2013, at 2:48:26 PM , Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote: > Dear all, > > let me say something more about the "evokes" property. I think we all agree that the "Lexical Concept" corresponds > to some mental unit of thought that is lexicalized (Armando does not agree with this yet, but will soon ;-) > > According to wiktionary, "evokes" means: > > " To cause the manifestation of something (emotion, picture, etc.) in someone's mind or imagination. " > > This is I think exactly the type of relation that we have hear. Hearing or writing a lexical entry (in some form) triggers or causes the manifestation of the corresponding Unit of Thought in the mind of a listener or writer. > > In that sense I think that using "evokes" might be warranted. > > My two cents, > > 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> 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> 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) 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> >> 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 >> >> 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 > > > -- > 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 12:53:57 UTC