- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:54:50 +0200
- To: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>
- CC: public-ontolex@w3.org
- Message-ID: <51CD879A.7000109@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Aldo, ok, thanks for letting us know. We have your email contributions anyway. Good luck with the interviews. Philipp. Am 28.06.13 14:53, schrieb Aldo Gangemi: > 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 > <mailto: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 >> <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/manifestation> of something (emotion, >> picture, etc.) in someone's mind <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mind> >> or imagination <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/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 >>> <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 > -- 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 12:55:23 UTC