Re: Lexicalization as collection of senses/onomasiological lexicon

John,

sounds good to me and is in line with what we discussed last Friday.

But is there any explicit relation between a Lexicon and a 
Lexicalizaiton other that through the sense objects that are connected 
via both?

Or are you intending to have metadataproperties that relate the Lexicon, 
the Lexicalization and the ontology?

Philipp.

Am 10.04.14 15:42, schrieb Guido Vetere:
> +1
>
> by the way this model allows multilingual lexicalization, which is 
> something we are interest in.
>
> I guess that cardinalities are 0-to-many for both 'sense' and 
> 'reference', right?
>
> From this model, it follows that ontology axioms (e.g. inclusion) are 
> not reflected by lexical relations (e.g. hyponymy), which, I guess, 
> hold among lexical senses. For instance, you may have synonyms 
> referring to disjoint concepts. Is it correct \ desired (by others 
> than me)?
>
> Regards,
>
> Guido Vetere
> Manager, Center for Advanced Studies IBM Italia
> _________________________________________________
> Rome                 Trento
> Via Sciangai 53       Piazza Manci 12
> 00144 Roma, Italy   38123 Povo in Trento
> +39 (0)6 59662137 +39 (0)461 312345
>
> Mobile: +39 3357454658
> _________________________________________________
>
>
>
> From: "John P. McCrae" <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
> To: public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>,
> Date: 10/04/2014 13:29
> Subject: Lexicalization as collection of senses/onomasiological lexicon
> Sent by: johnmccrae@gmail.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> So there was an interesting discussion on the telco last week about 
> the nature of "lexicalization"... I will try to make a summary/proposal.
>
> We can currently represent the data as a collection of words (lexical 
> entries) by means of the Lexicon object, and as a set of concepts as 
> an OWL ontology, however there is no object for describing how a 
> single lexicon lexicalizes a single ontology. This would be useful for 
> metadata so that we can say how much coverage a lexicon gives relative 
> to the ontology.
>
> This "lexicalization" object that has proposed by Armando, is an 
> object that describes the connection between an ontology and a 
> lexicon, is a collection of pairs (Ontology Entity, Lexical Entry) or 
> as we know them better Lexical Senses! Thus we can define the 
> Lexicalization as a collection of senses.
>
> Related to this is the fact that some lexicons (e.g., _SALDO_ 
> <http://spraakbanken.gu.se/eng/resource/saldo> and arguably WordNet) 
> are based around senses not words, and are thus onomasiological 
> lexicons, that is the lexicon as a collection of senses, as opposed to 
> a collection of words. To this end it may make sense to name the 
> lexicalization something else, such as SenseLexicon, as its role as a 
> lexicon of senses. In practice then the proposal is to have something 
> like this:
>
> Lexicon  o===== LexicalEntry
>                    ||
>                   sense
>                    vv
> Lexicalization   o===== LexicalSense
>                    ||
>                 reference
>                    vv
> Ontology    o===== Class/Property/Individual
>
> Does this seem reasonable?
>
> Regards,
> John
>
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI)
> Cap. Soc. euro 347.256.998,80
> C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
> Società con unico azionista
> Società soggetta all'attività di direzione e coordinamento di 
> International Business Machines Corporation
>
> (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise 
> above) 


-- 

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