Re: doubt about "Synset / Concept" class

Aldo, I think this is a good summary, just one more thing

(6) Being able to express formal mappings with valence as distinct from
informal mapping, e.g.,

"X is an acquaintance of Y" => "Y foaf:knows X"

Here lies on of the issues with not distinguishing formal/informal mapping

"X knows Y" --ontolex:reference-> foaf:knows (not applicable without
semantic argument structure)

"X knows Y" --ontolex:means-> mykos:knows (valid as informal mapping)

Also (5) should be

(5) being able to reason on concepts *as* classes/properties/individuals

(As a skos:Concept can be the pun of owl property or individual as well)

Regards,
John


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it> wrote:

> Dear all, let me recap this discussion in terms of requirements we can
> endorse or not.
>
> Previously, I asked if anyone endorses or not the requirement (0):
>
>         (0) distinguishing expressions, meanings, and references as
> disjoint *aspects* (not things) of the ontology-lexicon interface. I call
> it the "semiotic stance" for the interface between linguistic and formal
> semantics.
>
> Probably John supports the requirement based on his recent emails.
>
> Alessandro has answered that he does not endorses it, and attributes to
> Philipp the same conviction based on his assertion:
>
>         "So we should not treat SKOS concept as being really different
> from OWL concepts at the lexicon level. Such distinctions are very subtle
> and people will not grasp this difference, having doubts on which property
> to use in a particular case."
>
> I think Phiipp's assertion is not about the general requirement I asked
> for, but on another requirement (3) that I formulate below.
>
> The position of the others is less clear or they did not comment.
>
> Coming to the specific discussion on SKOS, it seems clear that we have the
> following requirements on the table:
>
>         1) being able to map lexical concepts to SKOS concepts (everyone
> supports it I guess :))
>
>         2) being able to treat SKOS as regular ontologies (I guess many
> support it, and me too!)
>
>         3) being able to distinguish between OWL encodings of purely
> intensional concepts, and OWL encodings of concepts bearing a clear
> extensional intepretation in the domain that they help conceptualizing (I
> and probably John support this).
>
> Notice that (3) is a requirement not limited to SKOS, but it holds also
> for lexica, NLP results, folksonomies, etc.
>
> To remind about the difference: an owl:Class onto:Dog in an ontology about
> dogs is supposed to have an intensional interpretation (the concept), as
> well as an extensional interpretation including all dogs (within an open
> world in OWL).
>
> A skos:Concept myskos:Dog is only supposed to have an intensional
> intepretation, and in fact it is an individual in the domain of concepts,
> not of dogs.
>
> A lexical concept is similar to a SKOS concept, then it'd be
> straightforward to map to it as a concept/meaning, whatever property we are
> using, although skos:exactMatch seems pretty good for that.
>
> Now, two new possible requirements, orthogonal to (3):
>
>         (4) being able to jointly reason on concepts and classes
>         (5) being able to reason on concepts *as* classes
>
> (4) is granted by any relation between concepts (skos or lexical), and
> classes, modulo the limits in interpretation when individuals and classes
> appear in object property triples.
>
> About (5), when I pun the constant myskos:Dog as an owl:Class, I'm simply
> extending its intepretation to the extensional, domain-oriented side, and
> that class has nothing in common (except the name) with the original SKOS
> concept. Similarly for lexical concepts, and in fact, none here is
> suggesting to create (by default) an owl:equivalentClass mapping between a
> lexical concept and an OWL class from an ontology.
>
> (5) should be discussed in our proposed ontology as a measure that can be
> taken by those willing to extend the semantics of concepts/meaning for
> their own reasons. Punning would be the right technical means to do that.
>
> I hope this helps to gets us a bit more focused.
> Aldo
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 8:15:07 AM , Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es> wrote:
>
> > Hi John,
> >
> >> Firstly, we should bear in mind that SKOS is not an ontology:
> >
> > Well, ontologies are resources representing the conceptual model
> > underlying a certain domain, describing it in a declarative fashion
> > cleaningly separated from procedural aspects [1]. In that sense, and
> > also in Grubber's traditional definition [2], SKOS models can be
> > considered ontologies. Although, of course, they are not "formal"
> > ontologies (the spectrum of formality is wide, as in Lassila's
> > classification [3]).
> >
> >> As such, we have two ways to go as a group. We could be in the very
> >> prescriptivist camp of saying "SKOS models are not ontologies, we should
> >> explicitly tell people they have to link to SKOS models differently".
> >> Alternatively, we could be in the permissive camp "Many people use SKOS
> as
> >> ontologies, we should accommodate this... (and SKOS is close enough to
> >> ontologies that the difference does not really matter)". This is
> therefore
> >> just a question of documentation, and perhaps the best solution is to
> say
> >> nothing at all (the prescriptivists aren't upset and the permissivists
> are
> >> not disallowed).
> >
> > Yes, I agree that is the best option (avoid commitments to any view),
> > although we still have to decide which domain/ranges will have our
> > ontology-lexicon mapping properties (so some commitments made).
> >
> >> Stated equivalence between symbols, e.g., (onto:SamuelClemens
> owl:sameAs onto:MarkTwain)
> >> Inferred equivalence between symbols, e.g., (onto:Yeti ≡ ⊥ ∏
> GreatestNaturalNumber ≡ ⊥ ⊨Yeti ≡ GreatestNaturalNumber)
> >
> > I am not sure if you can entail that two concepts are the same if they
> > share the same (empty) set of instances.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jorge
> >
> > ----
> >
> >
> > [1] Philipp Cimiano. Ontology learning and population from text:
> > Algorithms, evaluation and applications. Springer, October 2006
> > [2] Thomas R. Gruber. Toward principles for the design of ontologies
> > used for knowledge sharing. International Journal Human Computer
> > Studies, vol. 43, pages 907-928, November 1995.
> > [3] Ora Lassila & Deborah L. McGuinness. The Role of Frame-Based
> > Representation on the Semantic Web. Technical report, Knowledge
> > Systems Laboratory Stanford University, KSL-01-02, 2001
> >
>
>