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

Re: about Lexical Linked Data and notable lexical resources

From: John McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:47:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC5njqqdUvWdnGzz0NnUzAHcGCS7tVagpWxso_Zide6L=+QyQg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
Cc: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>, public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Hi,

We are already hosting a port of Princeton WordNet 3.0 to Lemon here
http://www.lemon-model.net/lexica/pwn/ and are actively discussing with
Princeton the use of RDF for WordNet.

I think this is more the pattern that should be followed, a mixture of
offering ports of existing resources, while working closely with the
original data producers to adopt the models we are developing here.

Regards,
John


On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it
> wrote:

> Hi Aldo,****
>
> ** **
>
> Boundary-conditions always affect decisions, and sometimes may even change
> their outcome radically.****
>
> Linked Data practices are well-known to everybody, and are mostly
> inherited from concepts of re-use (and related ones) of Software
> Engineering. And, to make an example, in software development, while
> imported software projects are usually (and obviously) “read-only”, no SE
> best practice will prevent you from changing a project which is imported by
> the one you are working on, if that project is under your control too and
> if this change positively affects a whole range of things being published.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> So, leaving theory we all agree about behind, and going ground to our
> case: obviously I wouldn’t contact anybody to change FOAF and ask it to
> become Lemon-compliant, nor to publish a separate Lemon-enrichment of FOAF
> :-)  ****
>
> But here, we are dealing with Lexical Resources: which have not to be
> enriched **with** Lemon descriptions, but can be described **through**
> Lemon. These lexical resources had a story, the current WordNet comes after
> at least one other attempt no? I think we can say the same for Framenet.
> So, while we don’t want to delete anything already said about them, I was
> just thinking if (also considering your presence in Lemon, and being at the
> same time one of the authors of that RDF WordNet) we could think of a new
> version for them (keeping their story, and maybe adding more descriptors).
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> You may remember I said that the current WordNet was perfect, though, in
> the context of shared vocabularies, I felt it was an ontology like any
> other domain ontologies+data, with its specific model. Yes, it was in OWL1,
> but I really felt the lack of a modeling-umbrella provided by W3C. That is,
> I would think of tools telling: “oh yes! This is a lexical resource! Let’s
> show it this way!”. That is also the motivation behind SKOS for concept
> schemes: anybody could create generic OWL instances for their “concepts”
> and create their own “myont:narrower”/broader, but SKOS provided the shared
> modeling vocabulary for that, so that SKOS-enabled tools could provide
> dedicated views.****
>
> ** **
>
> So, am I saying WordNet was released too early?****
>
> No, considering that a notable resource like that couldn’t stay out of RDF
> for too long, so good to have a shared OWL based representation for it. So,
> absolutely ok for that time!****
>
> Yes, if we consider that it could have put under a more explicit category
> of Lexical Resources (providing that this category was made explicit
> through some W3C language).****
>
> ** **
>
> So, my question was rightly in the above perspective. Since this
> discussion started mentioning theory and best practices, let me bring
> another example: the kind of top-to-down linking (connecting a model over
> an existing instance which has been represented after another model) we
> would make by leaving such resources as-they-are, is what software
> engineers call “Adapter” pattern. And Adapter patterns are just an
> “escamotage” for when you need to include objects which you really can’t
> touch. If you have any control over those objects, much better (when you
> write your new version of the software) to make them directly compatible
> with the new model (and leaving maybe those adapters for outdated versions).
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> So, I think the effort would be paid back enormously in the years, by a
> cleaner and clearer descriptions of these resources.****
>
> ** **
>
> This is my position, but my original question was not pleonastic: even if
> agreeing in changing the resources, there are whens and wheres to discuss.
> For instance, to change a resource already under the W3C umbrella, I would
> expect to see Lemon under the W3C umbrella as well, and in approved status.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers,****
>
> ** **
>
> Armando****
>
> ** **
>
> **1.       **maybe SKOS with some OWL axiomatizations would have been
> used if SKOS was more mature at the time? I see there is an open section
> here: http://www.w3.org/TR/wordnet-rdf/#skos****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Aldo Gangemi [mailto:aldo.gangemi@cnr.it]
> *Sent:* Friday, September 13, 2013 5:04 PM
> *To:* Armando Stellato
> *Cc:* Aldo Gangemi; public-ontolex@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: about Lexical Linked Data and notable lexical resources****
>
> ** **
>
> Just stick to Linked Data practices. When creating new data or
> vocabularies, link them to existing ones, do not try to substitute them!**
> **
>
> The pro-change arguments are bad practice: the bare fact of having a new
> vocabulary for interoperability does not mean that everything made in the
> past needs to be refactorised ;)****
>
> Re: exposition of OntoLex, sure it's important, but it can be exposed much
> better (and with less effort) by cross-linking resources, which will show
> its intended capabilities.****
>
> Concerning WordNet versions, a 3.0 port already exists from VU Amsterdam,
> and they use the same vocabulary from 2.0.****
>
> For the name, there are good reasons in both groups, and it's hard to take
> a final decision. An alternative solution (that I like) is to extract a
> real core vocabulary with only basic semiotic distinctions, and call it
> OntoLex, while the Lemon legacy (mostly about more specific properties and
> classes) may still be called Lemon.****
>
> Aldo****
>
> ** **
>
> On Sep 13, 2013, at 4:39:16 PM , "Armando Stellato" <
> stellato@info.uniroma2.it> wrote:****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> Hi all,****
>
>  ****
>
> Today, following the finalization of the core module, the agenda was quite
> dynamic, with some core points (e.g. name of the vocabulary, assessing the
> list of modules to be developed etc..) and time for raising new issues or
> retrieving open ones.****
>
>  ****
>
> I remember that one thing left appended (or at least, I recall hearing
> different opinions on the matter) was:****
>
>  ****
>
> “notable resources, like WordNet and FrameNet”: should we only map them,
> or should we make a new version, possibly with direct references to the
> OntoLex1 vocabulary?****
>
>  ****
>
> There are pro and contra for both approaches.****
>
> -          PRO-Keep: Solidity of the existing versions: for instance, as
> Aldo says about Wordnet: “it’s already out there under the W3C umbrella”,
> so better not to change anything carved into stone (though it’s still in
> working draft am I right?)****
>
> -          PRO-Change: Promotion of OntoLex: one thing is to have a
> mapping module telling how WordNet/Framenet is seen from an Ontolex
> perspective, one thing is to express WordNet/Framenet in terms of Ontolex
> directly inside the WordNet/Framenet resource. People accessing these
> resources will know about Ontolex.****
>
> -          PRO-Keep: even from a barely terminological point of view, it
> is important to keep the original descriptors from these resources and
> transpose them into RDF. e.g. a WordNet synset is a kind of
> ontolex:LexicalConcept; ontolex:LexicalConcept guarantess interoperability
> and tells how to “attach” wordnet descriptors to ontology by using ontolex
> vocabulary, nonetheless, it is important to provide a “Synset” class
> specific to WordNet to make it clear to WordNet users what those objects
> are by means of the WordNet terminology.****
>
> -          PRO-Change: despite the above is true, still whenever
> possible, a direct use of Ontolex constructs would make resources more
> explicitly “connected” and their reuse more “evident” in terms of Ontolex
> principles****
>
> -          …and so on…****
>
>  ****
>
> Now, we had interesting feedback from Piek Vossen (EuroWordNet) and other
> people involved in the development of these resources, and also comments
> and wishes about changes wrt existing versions (I recall one about URI
> namings for WordNet synsets, for instance).****
>
>  ****
>
> I imagine also that there are viable “grey” hypotheses, laying in the
> middle, like providing new versions of these resources (e.g. a WordNet 3.0
> RDF porting, whereas the current one is 2.0) which, while not “breaking”
> any already-defined construct, could still embed these mappings to OntoLex,
> bring some strongly required change, etc…, while not “betraying” its
> original nature (so, just an update and not a rewriting…)****
>
>  ****
>
> So, the question is:****
>
>  ****
>
> Leave everything as it is, and provide mappings in our OntoLex world, or
> try to maximize the awareness of Ontolex directly “at the source of the
> resources”, possibly (re)working them as much as necessary ?****
>
> …or any anything in the middle…case by case…****
>
>  ****
>
> Waiting for feedback :)****
>
>  ****
>
> Armando****
>
>  ****
>
> P.S: I made all examples about WordNet, as I’m not proficient enough for
> providing detailed examples about FrameNet, VerbNet, or other pertinent
> resources..****
>
>  ****
>
> 1.       I used the name OntoLex, but it’s just the fairest neutral name
> I thought to use here while waiting for the final one; there is still a
> final decision to be summed up from our votes about the naming of our
> model: be it Ontolex, Lemon2 or whatever else..****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> --------------------------------------------------****
>
>  ****
>
> Ing. Armando Stellato, PhD****
>
> AI Research Group,****
>
> Dept. of Enterprise Engineering****
>
> University of Roma, Tor Vergata****
>
> Via del Politecnico 1 00133 ROMA (ITALY)****
>
> tel: +39 06 7259 7330 (office, room A1-14);****
>
>      +39 06 7259 7332 (lab)****
>
> fax: +39 06 7259 7460****
>
> e_mail: stellato@info.uniroma2.it****
>
>  ****
>
> --------------------------------------------------****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
Received on Monday, 16 September 2013 09:48:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 10:57:31 UTC