W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ontolex@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Linking to semiotics.owl

From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 07:12:10 +0200
Message-ID: <5269FDAA.7030102@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
To: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>
CC: "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Aldo, thanks for your comments on this.

Do you have any comments on the linking to SKOS, see my other mail. I 
think this issue is more difficult than the linking to semiotics.owl

Question to all: are there any other models we should consider linking to?

Philipp.

Am 25.10.13 00:02, schrieb Aldo Gangemi:
> Dear Philipp, sorry for the late reply, and thanks for summarizing the 
> issues.
>
> On Oct 18, 2013, at 5:35:15 PM , Philipp Cimiano 
> <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de 
> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>  we have all agreed that we want to have links to other models, that 
>> these links should be formal (in the OWL sense) but that the mappings 
>> should not be part of the core model, but rather outsourced in a 
>> "linking module". The links would thus serve mainly for documentation 
>> purposes, but would not play a major role in the actual use of the model.
>
> Sure, however I suggest to simply say that any possible role (major or 
> not) in the actual use of the model is of course mandated to the 
> linking module.
>
>>
>> At least this is the understanding I have from the status of our 
>> discussion.
>>
>> I will now make a proposal for formal linking to semiotics.owl that I 
>> would like to discuss and agree upon (or not).
>>
>> In semiotics.owl, an "expression" is defined as: "Any information 
>> that either dul:expresses a Meaning or denotes a Reference". To some 
>> extent, this definition is quite vague and in my view we can commit 
>> totally to the view that a ontolex:LexicalEntry is a kind of 
>> semio:Expression".
>>
>
> Yes, that's what I have been suggesting. Notice that informal 
> definitions in semiotics.owl just provide the explanation of the 
> axioms in the ontology. For the intuition, there are examples 
> provided. I did this in order to avoid taking theoretical positions on 
> what is the "real nature of" things types as expressions, meaning, or 
> references. The core of semiotics is relational, not taxonomic. What 
> counts is what is assumed to denote what, and to express [a 
> conceptualization for] it: "Barack_Obama" may denote 
> http://dbpedia.org/resource/Barack_Obama with the type 
> http://dbpedia.org/ontology/OfficeHolder, or with a gloss 
> http://example.org/myont/WhoIsObama (with an associated value "Barack 
> Obama was born in … is the President of …").
> Notice that this is very general, and the restriction e.g. used in 
> lemon-ontolex to lexical senses makes lemon-ontolex a special semiotic 
> case.
>
>> If we look at our main path, a LexicalEntry is connected through the 
>> relation ontolex:denotes to an Ontology Entity. By this path, a 
>> Lexical Entry fullfills exactly the definition of an expression in 
>> semiotics.owl, so it seems justified and no over-commitment to link 
>> ontolex:LexicalEntry to semio:Expression through a subClassOf 
>> relation. We are clearly not making any unjustified commitments here.
>>
>
> Ok
>
>> As a corollary, it would seem natural to formally link 
>> ontolex:denotes to semiotics:denotes through an equivalentProperty 
>> statement (or a SubclassOf statement?). The consequence of linking 
>> with an equivalentProperty statement would be that ontolex:denotes 
>> would then have semiotics:Reference as range. This might seem 
>> critical in the light that we never wanted to fix the range of 
>> "denotes".
>
> I think SubPropertyOf is more appropriate. semiotics:Reference 
> includes things that are not necessarily ontology entities, for the 
> abovementioned reason (semiotics.owl does not commit to any particular 
> theory of reference). An EquivalentProperty statement would make us 
> infer that.
>
>>
>> However, our current definition of ontolex:denotes is:
>>
>> "The relation between a lexical entry and the logical predicate in an 
>> ontology that represents its meaning and has some denotational / 
>> model-theoretic semantics"
>>
>> And semio:denotes is defines as follows:
>>
>> "A relation between expressions and anything (including expressions).
>> It can be used to talk about e.g. entities denoted by proper nouns: 
>> the proper noun 'Leonardo da Vinci' denotes the person Leonardo da 
>> Vinci; as well as to talk about sets of entities that can be 
>> described by a common noun: the common noun 'person' denotes the 
>> collection of all persons in a domain of discourse. In OWL2, punning 
>> can be used to represent denotation of concept names with owl class 
>> extensions, e.g. 'mouse' denotes owl:Class:Mouse."
>>
>> It seems to me that both relations semio:denotes and ontolex:denotes 
>> are fairly compatible, with ontolex:denotes being more specific 
>> requiring a "LexicalEntry" in its domain. From this perspective if 
>> makes sense to formally link ontolex:denotes to semio:denotes thorugh 
>> a subPropertyOf relation IMHO. Interestingly, our definition is even 
>> more specific. While semio:denotes says the range is "anything it can 
>> be used to talk about", we are more specific requiring the range to 
>> be "a logical predicate (or symbol I would say) in an ontology that 
>> represents its meaning and has some model-theoretic semantics".
>> In sum, I feel that linking to semio:denotes is absolutely warranted 
>> and actually no overcommitment in any way.
>
> I agree, as I suggest above, lemon-ontolex can be seen as a 
> specialized semiotic model applied to the represention of lexical 
> relations, then a SubPropertyOf linking is justified.
>
>>
>> Now, let's consider the definition of "Reference" in semiotics.owl
>>
>> A semio:Reference is "Anything that isDenotedBy an Expression, or 
>> that hasInterpretation some Meaning".  If we thus say indirectly that 
>> the range of ontolex:denotes is semio:Reference via the subProperty 
>> linking to semio:denotes, there is clearly no problem here as the 
>> above defnition is rather uncritical. I neither see any 
>> overcommitment here.
>>
>> So my proposal is that in a separate linking module we add the 
>> following links for documentation purposes:
>>
>> ontolex:denotes subPropertyOf semio:denotes
>> ontolex:LexicalEntry subClassOf semio:Expression
>>
>
> Ah ok, fully agreed
>
>> As such, it would follows that
>>
>> ontolex:denotes range semio:Reference
>>
>> But as I argue above this is not critical in any way and even 
>> fullfills our intuitions.
>>
>
> +1
>
>>
>> I will leave it here for now, we still have to discuss about a link 
>> to semio:Meaning and hasConceptualization, but let us first agree on 
>> the above and then continue.
>>
>
> For that, please see my forst comment. Also semio:Meaning is fairly 
> general, and does not commit to any particular theory of meaning. 
> Therefore, we can assume that meanings can be any entity intended as 
> the conceptualization of a reference denoted by an expression (or, 
> according to the use case, as expressed by an expression that denotes 
> a reference).
>
> Such entities include lexical senses, synsets, semantic frames, 
> semantic roles, concepts, ontology classes and relations, but also 
> glosses, paraphrases, definitions, and even cognitive objects. Of 
> course, each case of meaning establishes a special "semiotic game", 
> and lemon-ontolex does just that in considering lexical senses for 
> lexical entries.
>
> Accordingly, I propose to use SubClassOf and SubPropertyOf statements 
> for the linking.
>
>> I know we sort of agreed on this already, but Guido mentioned in his 
>> answer to the poll that we should have a deeper look at the links to 
>> make sure that we are not making any commitments that we do not want. 
>> Given what I said above, I do not think that we are making any 
>> unwarranted commitments.
>
> Indeed
> Ciao
> Aldo
>
>>
>> I am happy to hear your point of view.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Philipp.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
>>
>> Phone: +49 521 106 12249
>> Fax: +49 521 106 12412
>> Mail:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>>
>> Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS)
>> Raum 2.307
>> Universität Bielefeld
>> Inspiration 1
>> 33619 Bielefeld
>


-- 

Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano

Phone: +49 521 106 12249
Fax: +49 521 106 12412
Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de

Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS)
Raum 2.307
Universität Bielefeld
Inspiration 1
33619 Bielefeld
Received on Friday, 25 October 2013 05:12:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:36:35 UTC