- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 17:56:46 +0200
- To: John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- CC: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>, Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es>, "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <518A75BE.40502@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Dear all,
I am not with Aldo and John here.
I think introducing two different properties makes our model
unnecessarily complex.
We said we use "reference" when the meaning is expressed by an
extensional entity where we defined extensional as "having an extension
in some model of the theory". I agreed to that.
According to this, a particular skos:Concept (an individual) has as much
as an extensional interpretation as a particular owl:Class, or an
owl:Individual to stay at the same level.
Of course, a particular skos:Concept is an individual from an RDF/OWL
perspective and is also interpreted as some individual in the
corresponding domain, much like an owl:Individual. So a model assigns
some extensional interpretation to both skos:Concepts and
owl:Individuals. Where is then the essential difference that prevents us
using the same property for both then?
Surely, skos:Concept are per definition "intensions", but technically
they are extensional entities according to our definition, i.e.
owl:Individual or rdf:Thing.
Further, it is perfectly fine for a skos:Concept to be an owl:Class (see
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-skos-reference-20090818/)
What do we use then? "reference" or "means"? ;-)
Treating skos:Concept and owl:Class as different types of meaning seems
too subtle for people who want to use the model in practice as they will
always wonder which is the right property to use.
Philipp.
Am 08.05.13 13:08, schrieb John McCrae:
> Hi Aldo,
>
> Names in the previous example are not fixed of course. I also don't
> like "means" that much I just haven't got a better alternative yet.
> (synset is too WordNet-specific, means/meaning/concept are too broad)
>
> Regards,
> John
>
>
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it
> <mailto:aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>> wrote:
>
> Hi, I agree with John, we really seem on the same wave now :), in
> fact I agree with Model 2 being far better.
> Only, should we really use ontolex:means to link senses and
> synsets? It's a bit too broad as a name for a specific relation
> like that, isn't it?
>
> Aldo
>
> On May 8, 2013, at 6:37:22 AM , John McCrae
> <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
> <mailto:jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jorge, all,
>>
>> Thanks for your comment, I agree this is an issue we should
>> discuss. I think that it is clearly wrong to continue to treat
>> skos:Concepts as ontological elements, they aren't and we
>> shouldn't really confuse them. The question of whether we should
>> still use SKOS terminologies as systems of reference for the
>> model also seems clear to me (of course we should).
>>
>> The question then boils down to this essential question: do we
>> use the same property to reference both a skos:Concept and an
>> ontology entity?
>>
>> This leads to two variation on the model:
>>
>> Model 1. (Same property)
>>
>> With synsets
>>
>> :corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 --ontolex:means->
>> wordnet:corn_n_xxx _--ontolex:conceptualizes->_ fao:Corn (a
>> skos:Concept)
>> :corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 --ontolex:means->
>> wordnet:corn_n_xxx --ontolex:conceptualizes-> dbpedia:Corn (a
>> owl:Class)
>>
>> Without synsets
>>
>> :corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 _--ontolex:reference->_
>> fao:Corn (a skos:Concept)
>> :corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 --ontolex:reference->
>> dbpedia:Corn (a owl:Class)
>>
>> Model 2. (Different property)
>>
>> With synsets
>>
>> :corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 --ontolex:means->
>> wordnet:corn_n_xxx _--skos:exactMatch->_ fao:Corn (a skos:Concept)
>> :corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 --ontolex:means->
>> wordnet:corn_n_xxx --ontolex:conceptualizes-> dbpedia:Corn (a
>> owl:Class)
>>
>> Without synsets
>>
>> :corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 _--ontolex:means->_ fao:Corn
>> (a skos:Concept)
>> :corn --ontolex:sense-> :corn_sense1 --ontolex:reference->
>> dbpedia:Corn (a owl:Class)
>>
>> With further linking valid of
>>
>> fao:Corn --ontolex:conceptualizes-> dbpedia:Corn
>>
>>
>> I prefer model two as it makes a clearer distinction between
>> terminologies and ontologies, doesn't require linking two SKOS
>> concepts with an ontolex property (which we should avoid as it is
>> not our job to fix SKOS) and allows us to define a natural
>> property for linking terminologies to ontologies.
>>
>> Regards,
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es
>> <mailto:jgracia@fi.upm.es>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Philipp, all
>>
>> I am not able to join the telco today, sorry. But let me to
>> formulate
>> a quick question about John's model
>> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/File:John-modelling.png);
>> maybe you can treat it today.
>> Following the previous discussions I can understand the
>> inclusion of
>> the new class "Synset / Concept". My doubt is: despite the
>> fact that
>> skos concepts could be represented with this new class, can we
>> alternatively continuing treating skos concepts (of external skos
>> ontologies) as "ontology entities"? (as in the IFLA example
>> presented
>> last week). For me this option is very natural, fully
>> compliant with
>> R3 "semantics by reference" and we shouldn't lose it.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Jorge
>>
>>
>> 2013/5/2 Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>>:
>> > Dear all,
>> >
>> > this is a gentle reminder that we will have our regular
>> ontolex telco
>> > tomorrow.
>> >
>> > I intend to discuss the model proposed by John on the basis
>> of the
>> > contributions of all of you.
>> > I would like to see if there is a chance that we agree on
>> this model as a
>> > building block for the further work.
>> >
>> > Here is a link to the conference metadata including access
>> details:
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2013.03.05,_15-16_pm_CET
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Philipp.
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jorge Gracia, PhD
>> Ontology Engineering Group
>> Artificial Intelligence Department
>> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
>> http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~jgracia/
>> <http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/%7Ejgracia/>
>>
>>
>
>
--
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 Wednesday, 8 May 2013 15:57:16 UTC