RE: doubt about "Synset / Concept" class

+1 from me on Philipp’s position.

 

 

From: Philipp Cimiano [mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de] 
Sent: mercoledì 8 maggio 2013 17.57
To: John McCrae
Cc: Aldo Gangemi; Jorge Gracia; public-ontolex@w3.org
Subject: Re: doubt about "Synset / Concept" class

 

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 <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> 
 
Room H-127
Morgenbreede 39
33615 Bielefeld

Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 18:50:58 UTC