- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 11:53:05 +0200
- To: Manuel Fiorelli <manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com>
- CC: "John P. McCrae" <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <53DB6381.4090508@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Hi Manuel, ok, we agree on most issues. See below... Am 01.08.14 00:10, schrieb Manuel Fiorelli: > Hi Philipp, All > > my answers below. > > > 2014-07-31 21:56 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano > <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de > <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>>: > > John, Manuel, all, > > thanks for your email. > > I reply to both John and Manuel below... > > Regards,for each role: i.e. a frame for the sele > > Philipp. > > Am 31.07.14 16:23, schrieb Manuel Fiorelli: >> Hi Philipp, John, All >> >> thanks you for the update on the synsem module and the >> interesting example. By first, a minor mistake: the sell lexical >> entry uses the canonical form of the buy lexical entry. > > Thanks, already updated. > >> >> I agree with Philipp that buy and sell are semantically related, >> however I found in FrameNet a different pattern: there are two >> frames [1,2], which represent different perspectives on the same >> non lexical frame [3]. > > Yes, I have seen this in Framenet. Nevertheless, it is really a > subjective decision whether they represent the same frame or not. > I have decided to model them as the same frame in my example, > which is legitimate as they both refer to an exchange of goods for > money, just the perspective is different, but the perspective, I > assume, can not be captured in the ontology. Hope you are with me > here for the sake of the example. I am not saying they should not > be different frames in general ... > > > While I do not consider myself a super-expert in frame semantics, I > agree with you that "buy" and "sell" should refer to the same frame at > a deeper semantic level, which is where an ontology operates. > >> >> I agree also with John that we should map the subject and the >> object of the predicate. However, in the given example I suspect >> that "seller", "buyer" and moreover "exchanged good" are not >> really binary relations on the domain. In fact, I think they are >> roles of an N-ary relation, which is usually modeled as a subject >> resource having different properties associated with each role. >> In this case the subject would be a distinguished resource >> describing the specific event, which in turn has a buyer, a >> seller and an exchanged good. > > Yes, this answers also to John's comments. I have regarded frames > as essentially represented a reified situation or event so that > every property represents a frame argument or slot via a binary > property that has the situaton or event as subject. I agree that > this might not be general enough. > > John: would you please update the example so that it is > appropriate in your understanding? Thanks. > >> >> Finally, I noticed that Philipp split the description of the >> semantic frame in two parts, which related to sell and buy, >> respectively. I wonder if the description is understandable, if >> we take the two parts together, as they appear to an agent >> processing RDF. >> >> [1] >> https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frameIndex.xml?frame=Commerce_sell >> [2] >> https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frameIndex.xml?frame=Commerce_buy >> [3] >> https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frameIndex.xml?frame=Commerce_goods-transfer >> > OK, I did not find the later frame this morning when looking into > Framenet. I could directly use this Framenet frame as example. > In any case, Manuel, I am not sure what your point is here. What > exactly is not understandable in your view? > > > My objection is that you split the description of the semantic frame > into two blocks. In each block, you associated the frame with > subframes, each one associating a semantic role with a syntactic > argument. Having these two blocks, I can easily understand that the > semantic frame has three roles, which maps to the syntactic arguments. > Conversely, it I consider these two blocks together, as they are in > reality, then I am not sure I can easily spot the "shape" of the > semantic frame. > Yes, that is the only objection I can see so far as well. Let's give a deeper look at this after the holidays, ok? > > Is there any relation between the three frames mentioned above in > FrameNet? > > > In the page about Commerce_goods-transfer > (https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frameIndex.xml?frame=Commerce_sell), > you can find a section titled "Frame-frame Relations". It seems that > this frame "Is Perspectivized in" the other two frames. OK. > > Btw. do framenet frames and framenet FEs have URIs that one can > refer to? > > > I didn't find any official RDF version of Framenet. Hmmm. > > >> >> 2014-07-31 16:02 GMT+02:00 John P. McCrae >> <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >> <mailto:jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>>: >> >> Hello, >> >> A quick couple of points; firstly we should avoid using the >> same property to represent multiple semantically different >> relations, that is we should not have a 'sense' linking both >> a frame and a sense, and a 'sense' linking an entry and a >> sense. It is also my understanding that the sense owns its >> frame and as such we should put the link from the sense to >> the frame, although this is mostly not technically relevant. >> >> Secondly, it is important to state how the semantic frames >> map to the *actual* semantic frame, that is the ontology >> predicates, this is achieved on the sense level with >> objOfProp, subjOfProp and isA... and has to be repeated for >> the frame object. >> >> Regards, >> John >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Philipp Cimiano >> <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote: >> >> Dear Fahad and Francesca, Armano, Manuel et al. >> >> thanks for your contributions to this thread. We have >> agreed on one of our last telcos to add Semantic Frames >> into the model, in particular into the synsem module. >> >> However, there is not yet a 100% agreement on how to do >> this. If you contribute to this, then we will make sure >> that the representation fits your needs. >> >> I attach an example (what is now >> Examples/synsem/example10.ttl in the GIT project). I show >> how to verbs "sell" and "buy" are linked to the same >> frame "exchange_goods_for_money". >> >> This is done via their syntactic behaviours that are >> linked to the same frame. The diffrent mappings between >> syntactic arguments and roles are expressed through >> subFrames and frameArgs. >> >> If this is what you want, it would have a small impact on >> the model only. requiring to introduce: >> >> 1) a class "SemanticFrame" >> 2) a property "semFrameuri" relating syntactic frames to >> their semantic frames >> 3) a property "semArg" to identify a semantic argument of >> a frame >> 4) overload the property "sense" so that it can also have >> "Frames" (in addition to Lexical Entries) as domain >> >> Let me know if this is what you want. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Philipp. >> >> Am 23.07.14 12:38, schrieb Anas Fahad Khan: >> >> Hi everyone >> >> We (at ILC in Pisa) are currently working on >> converting a lexical resource (Parole Simple Clips) >> into rdf using lemon. Right now we are working on >> representing verb meanings and we're having to deal >> with the kinds of issues you’re discussing in this >> thread. >> >> >From our perspective having something like a >> semantic frame would be an extremely good idea since >> in our lexical resource verbs (and nouns) have >> separate senses and predicative representations in >> addition to referring to concepts in an ontology (via >> a mapping between senses and references). This >> predicative representation could then be described or >> linked to by the semantic frame since it might turn >> out that we want to keep information about a >> predicative representation of a word meaning and its >> argument structure separate from the reference of a >> sense. >> >> In the lemon cookboourik, lemon:isA seems to have >> been used in this way (to refer to a separate >> predicative representation), although it isn’t 100% >> clear. >> >> :cat lemon:sense [ lemon:reference ontology:Cat ; >> lemon:isA :isa_cat ] . >> >> As Armando has mentioned in the thread there is a >> certain tension between ontolex as a normative model >> (e.g.,“you should put your lexical information here >> and your semantic information there”) and as a >> resource that enables the translation and conversion >> of previously existing resources taking into >> consideration the fact that they may well have >> diverse conceptual and theoretical underpinnings. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Fahad and Francesca >> >> >> >> >> Manuel Fiorelli <manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com >> <mailto:manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com>> ha scritto: >> >> Dear Philipp, All >> >> thanks very much for you explanation. Meanwhile, >> I had also the time to >> read the documentation of the module more carefully. >> >> >> 2014-07-22 22:06 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano >> <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> >> : >> >> Hi Manuel, all, >> >> thanks for raising this issue. You will find >> below my answers... >> >> >> Am 18.07.14 16:39, schrieb Manuel Fiorelli: >> >> Dear Philipp, All >> >> Following the discussion during the today's >> meeting (especially >> Armando's speech), I've some questions to >> assess my understanding of the >> problem. >> >> Wordreference provides three "meanings" for >> the word "waken": >> >> - waken (vi) = become awake >> - waken (tr) = cause to become awake >> - waken (vi) = interest, etc: be aroused >> >> First question: are these three "lexical >> senses" for the single lexical >> entry "waken", or are them three difference >> lexical entries. >> >> My intuition is that this is one lexical >> entry, with two different >> syntactic behaviours and three different >> (lexical) senses. >> >> >> If the answer is: they are different >> lexical entries, please skip the >> rest of the email. Otherwise, if they are >> three senses for the same lexical >> entry, please read below. >> >> >> So the answer is: yes, they are different >> lexical entries. >> >> I am pretty sure that the first and third >> senses do not evoke (sorry >> for the wrong term) the same frame as the >> second sense. >> >> Correct, non of them evokes the same frame I >> would say. >> >> >> I am happy to know that I did not make a mistake >> on the basics :-D >> >> Furthermore, I do agree that there is no 1-1 >> correspondence between >> >> senses and semantic frames, because there >> might be different words that in >> different contexts evokes the same semantic >> frame. >> >> In my opinion the correspondence between >> syntactic and semantic frames >> is not obvious, as well: >> >> 1. the same syntactic frame (eg. >> transitive verb) might be used by a >> lexical entry to express different frames. >> >> Yes, that is true. That can be expressed >> with the current model as only >> a subset of the syntactic behaviours are >> linked to a particular sense. >> >> >> In the examples on the Wiki, I found that >> syntactic behaviours are linked >> to lexical entries. >> >> >> >> >> 1. the same semantic frame might be >> realized differently by different >> words. >> >> >> Do you have an example for this? >> >> >> Mmm... I have not an example right now. However, >> as a very informal >> example, consider the lexical entries "father" >> and "dad". I am not sure >> they are "predicative", as the word capital is. >> But let pretended they are. >> Imagine that we want to map "X is father of Y" >> and "X is the dad of Y" to X >> :father Y. >> >> My question is: how many semantic frames do we need? >> >> >> >> The way we could do this is as follows: >> >> 1) A lexical entry $lex$ has a given >> syntactic behaviour $syn$, $syn$ is >> linked to one or more frames $f$, which are >> linked to a particular sense >> and have frame Argument (frameArg) that are >> linked to syntactic arguments >> of the syntactic behaviour. >> >> 2) As a shortcut, we could infer that a >> frameArg is a semArg of the >> corresponding associated (lexical) Sense. >> >> 3) Thus, a lexical entry could have diff. >> syntactic behaviours, different >> senses and different semantic frames >> associated to the syntactic behaviours >> and linked to a particular sense of that word. >> >> >> >> Could you please rewrite one of the examples from >> the wiki, by using this >> new model? >> >> >> >> As I said, I can provide a small example if >> you give me some material ;-) >> >> >> Thanks again for the opportunity. However, as I >> said, re-reading the >> specification actually clarified most of my concerns. >> >> >> >> >> 2014-07-18 15:30 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano < >> cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>>: >> >> Dear all, >> >> a better example showing a more complex >> frame is the following >> representing a "launch"-frame: >> >> >> @prefix ontolex: >> <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#> >> <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#> . >> @prefix synsem: >> <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/synsem#> >> <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/synsem#> . >> @prefix lexinfo: >> <http://lexinfo.net/ontology/2.0/lexinfo.owl#> >> <http://lexinfo.net/ontology/2.0/lexinfo.owl#> >> . >> @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> >> <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>. >> @prefix xsd: >> <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> >> <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>. >> >> @prefix : <> . >> >> >> >> :launch a ontolex:LexicalEntry ; >> lexinfo:partOfSpeech lexinfo:verb ; >> ontolex:canonicalForm :launch_canonical_form; >> synsem:synBehavior :launch_transitive_pp; >> ontolex:sense :launch_semframe. >> >> :launch_canonical_form ontolex:writtenRep >> "launch"@en. >> uri >> :launch_transitive_pp a >> lexinfo:TransitivePPFrame; >> lexinfo:subject :launch_arg1 ; >> lexinfo:directObject :launch_arg2 ; >> lexinfo:prepositionalAdjunct :launch_arg3. >> >> :launch_arg3 synsem:marker :in ; >> >> synsem:optional "true"^^xsd:boolean . >> >> >> :launch_semframe a synsem:SemanticFrame; >> synsem:subsense :launch_subframe1; >> synsem:subsense :launch_subframe2. >> >> :launch_subframe1 ontolex:reference >> <http://dbpedia.org/ontology/product> >> <http://dbpedia.org/ontology/product>; >> synsem:subjOfProp :launch_arg1; >> synsem:objOfProp :launch_arg2. >> >> :launch_subframe2 ontolex:reference >> <http://dbpedia.org/ontology/launchDate> >> <http://dbpedia.org/ontology/launchDate>; >> synsem:subjOfProp :launch_arg2; >> synsem:objOfProp :launch_arg3. >> >> Regarurids, >> >> Philipp. >> >> Am 18.07.14 13:31, schrieb Philipp Cimiano: >> >> Hi Armando, all, >> >> here follow a few coded examples >> (examples 3, 4 and 5 from Github >> project: Examples/synsem >> >> Example 3: >> >> @prefix ontolex: >> <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#> >> <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#> . >> @prefix synsem: >> <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/synsem#> >> <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/synsem#> . >> @prefix lexinfo: >> <http://lexinfo.net/ontology/2.0/lexinfo.owl#> >> <http://lexinfo.net/ontology/2.0/lexinfo.owl#> >> . >> @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> >> <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>. >> >> >> @prefix : <> . >> >> >> :own_lex a ontolex:LexicalEntry ; >> synsem:canonicalForm :own_form ; >> synsem:synBehavior :own_synframe ; >> ontolex:sense :own_semframe. >> >> :own_form ontolex:writtenRep "own"@en. >> >> :own_synframe a lexinfo:TransitiveFrame; >> :subject :own_subj; >> :dobject :own_obj. >> >> :own_semframe a synsem:SemanticFrame; >> ontolex:reference >> <http://dbpedia.org/ontology/owner> >> <http://dbpedia.org/ontology/owner>; >> synsem:subjOfProp :own_obj; >> synsem:objOfProp :own_subj. >> >> :subject owl:subPropertyOf synsem:synArg. >> :dobject owl:subPropertyOf synsem:synArg. >> >> Example 4: >> >> @prefix ontolex: >> <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#> >> <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#> . >> @prefix synsem: >> <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/synsem#> >> <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/synsem#> . >> @prefix lexinfo: >> <http://lexinfo.net/ontology/2.0/lexinfo.owl#> >> <http://lexinfo.net/ontology/2.0/lexinfo.owl#> >> . >> @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> >> <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>. >> @prefix xsd: >> <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> >> <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>. >> >> @prefix : <> . >> >> :opening_film_at a ontolex:LexicalEntry ; >> lexinfo:partOfSpeech lexinfo:noun ; >> ontolex:canonicalForm :opening_film_form; >> synsem:synBehavior :opening_film_nounpp; >> ontolex:sense :opening_film_frame. >> >> :opening_film_form a ontolex:Form; >> ontolex:writtenRep "opening film"@en. >> >> :opening_film_nounpp a lexinfo:NounPPFrame; >> lexinfo:subject :opening_film_arg1; >> lexinfo:prepositionalArg :opening_film_arg2. >> >> :opening_film_frame a synsem:SemanticFrame; >> ontolex:reference >> <http://dbpedia.org/ontology/openingFilm> >> <http://dbpedia.org/ontology/openingFilm>; >> ontolex:subjOfProp :opening_film_arg2; >> ontolex:objOfProp :opening_film_arg1. >> >> :opening_film_arg2 synsem:marker :at ; >> synsem:optional "true"^^xsd:boolean . >> >> :at a ontolex:LexicalEntry ; >> ontolex:canonicalForm :at_from . >> >> :at_from ontolex:writtenRep "at"@en . >> >> Example 5: >> >> @prefix synsem: >> <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/synsem#> >> <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/synsem#> . >> @prefix lexinfo: >> <http://lexinfo.net/ontology/2.0/lexinfo.owl#> >> <http://lexinfo.net/ontology/2.0/lexinfo.owl#> >> . >> @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> >> <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>. >> @prefix xsd: >> <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> >> <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>. >> >> @prefix : <> . >> >> >> :graduate_from a ontolex:LexicalEntry ; >> lexinfo:partOfSpeech lexinfo:verb ; >> ontolex:canonicalForm >> :graduate_canonical_form; >> synsem:synBehavior >> :graduate_from_intransitivepp; >> ontolex:sense :graduate_from_semframe. >> >> :graduate_canonical_form a ontolex:Form; >> ontolex:writtenRep "graduate"@en. >> >> :graduate_from_intransitivepp a >> ontolex:Frame; >> lexinfo:subject :graduate_arg1 ; >> lexinfo:prepositionalArg :graduate_arg2. >> >> :graduate_from_semframe a >> synsem:SemanticFrame; >> ontolex:reference >> <http://dbpedia.org/ontology/almaMater> >> <http://dbpedia.org/ontology/almaMater>; >> ontolex:subjOfProp :graduate_arg1; >> ontolex:objOfProp :graduate_arg2. >> >> :graduate_arg2 synsem:marker :from ; >> synsem:optional "true"^^xsd:boolean . >> >> :from a ontolex:LexicalEntry ; >> ontolex:canonicalForm :from_form . >> >> :from_form ontolex:writtenRep "from"@en . >> >> To me these are all prototypical >> situations: the situation of somebody >> (owner) owning something (owned), the >> situation of a film being opening >> film at some festival, the situation of >> somebody (a graduate) receiveing a >> graduation from some institution. These >> are clear frames with clear >> semantic roles. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Philipp. >> >> >> >> >> Am 18.07.14 12:55, schrieb Armando Stellato: >> >> Hi Philipp, >> >> >> >> thanks for the thorough explanation. As I >> said, I totally agree with you >> on the addition of the class (not sure >> though if on the core module, >> but..I’ve no strong opinion on that). In >> any case, this is again a matter >> of how much we want to deal with the >> coverage of existing and variegated >> lexical resources, which is at the >> boundary of the strict ontolex scope >> (though yet I find it a good occasion to >> do it). >> >> >> >> I still don’t clearly understand the need >> to make it a subclass of >> LexicalSense. I understand that a frame >> more or less is bound to senses of >> given words, but I don’t see it as a >> LexicalSense itself. In some mappings, >> such as those to semiotics .owl, we have >> may have rougher containments wrt >> to Meaning/Expression/Reference, but the >> concept of LexicalSense is rather >> more specific than Meaning. >> >> At most, I would see it as a subclass of >> LexicalConcept (though I would >> not vote for it either). To me a frame >> depicts a “situation”,and I don’t >> see the relation with LexicalSense. >> >> …but it may also be very easily that I’m >> missing something. Maybe a coded >> example would help… >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Armando >> >> >> >> *From:* Philipp Cimiano >> [mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> >> <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>>] >> *Sent:* Friday, July 18, 2014 11:06 AM >> *To:* Armando Stellato; 'John P. McCrae'; >> Armando Stellato; 'John P. >> McCrae' >> *Cc:* public-ontolex@w3.org >> <mailto:public-ontolex@w3.org>; >> public-ontolex@w3.org >> <mailto:public-ontolex@w3.org> >> *Subject:* Re: synsem module >> >> >> >> John, Armando, all, >> >> sorry for my late reply on this issue >> with the "Semantic Frame". >> >> I still think that it is a good idea to >> introduce Semantic Frame as a >> subclass of "Lexical Sense". Let me try >> to argue a bit more: >> >> 1) Of course, the semantics is in the >> ontology, but as we all know frames >> are not explicit in languages such as OWL >> / RDF, so the "Semantic Frame" >> class would essentially stand proxy for a >> structure that can be represented >> in terms of ontology predicates. Imagine >> I have a class "GoodExchange" and >> a property "Lender" and a property >> "borrower". Then the semantic frame >> associated to the expression "X borrowed >> Y from Z" is represented by a >> particular set of properties in the >> ontology, i.e. the binary properties >> "lender" and "borrower". The Semantic >> Frame is a prox object in the lexicon >> that binds these properties into a unit >> (gestalt) that expresses the >> meaning of a syntactic frame such as "X >> borrowed Y from Z". I agree this >> is in principle only syntactic sugar as >> this can already be represented by >> the current vocabulary we have. The main >> difference is that it makes the >> fact that at the ontology side we >> actually have a frame with arguments more >> explicit and clearer, particulary >> considering the following point 2: >> >> 2) The main reason why I am arguing to >> introduce the SemanticFrame class >> is that it is somehow non-standard to say >> that a Lexical Sense has >> semanticArguments. This will be strange >> for many people. It will be much >> clearer if we say that a SemanticFrame >> has semantic arguments, where the >> SemanticFrames simply stands proxy for a >> certain ontological configuration >> in the ontology. >> >> So what I am proposing is to redefine the >> property semArg to have >> SemanticFrame as domain, and making >> SemanticFrame a subclass of Sense. In >> some sense a SemanticFrame is thus a >> special case of a Sense that is a >> gestalt-like thing having semantic arguments. >> >> The model is increased by one class, >> true, that is really the only >> drawback I see. But it makes the model >> conceptually clearer and more >> accessible I believe. The advantage is >> that this extension is compatible >> with previous versions. If people stick >> to the previous modelling, the only >> consequence is that the LexicalSenses the >> have been using so far will be >> inferred to be SemanticFrames. This does >> not intefere with anyhting they >> have done and produces the desired inference. >> >> Regards, >> >> Philipp. >> >> >> Am 10.07.14 11:37, schrieb Armando Stellato: >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> my (really poor) two cents: >> >> >> >> I agree mostly with John, except that, >> well, yes, I wouldn’t be so close >> wrt introducing frames ion general. But I >> suspect this is again a matter of >> principle: either we want to *only* have >> a model which coherently depicts >> things in a given way, or we may **also** >> want to represent existing >> resources according to it. One of the >> things in the limbo between the two >> approaches has always been the >> representation of existing lexical >> resources. This is, by definition, not in >> the scope of OntoLex, though, in >> the absence of existing RDF models for >> lexical resources, inevitably (IMHO) >> it should be addressed. >> >> >> >> So, to me it wouldn’t be bad to have a >> frame resources module, and I see >> a SemanticFrame in there. Again, my >> preference goes to have the possibility >> of seeing existing resources not depicted >> by their own ontology (e.g. >> FrameNet ontology), but rather seen under >> a larger umbrella. >> >> However, I don’t see any kind of >> inclusion (in a sense or the other) with >> LexicalSense, and I better see it as a >> separate object. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Armando >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* johnmccrae@gmail.com >> <mailto:johnmccrae@gmail.com> >> [mailto:johnmccrae@gmail.com >> <mailto:johnmccrae@gmail.com> >> <johnmccrae@gmail.com >> <mailto:johnmccrae@gmail.com>>] *On >> Behalf Of *John P. McCrae >> *Sent:* Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:12 AM >> *To:* Philipp Cimiano; Philipp Cimiano >> *Cc:* public-ontolex@w3.org >> <mailto:public-ontolex@w3.org>; >> public-ontolex@w3.org >> <mailto:public-ontolex@w3.org> >> *Subject:* Re: synsem module >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Philipp >> Cimiano < >> cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> >> wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> I am working through the synsem module, >> see my updates on the GIT >> repository. >> >> I do not have major changes of this >> module other than the following two: >> >> 1) I have changed a number of definitions >> to make them clearer, please >> check and let me know if the definitions >> are fine. >> >> 2) For the sake of symmetry, I propose to >> add a class "SemanticFrame" as >> a counterpart to Frame, which represents >> a syntactic frame, essentially >> capturing the valence or subcat behaviour >> of a given lexical entry. This >> SemanticFrame would essentially be a >> subclass of LexicalSense, and would >> leave the other parts of the model >> essentially untouched. I feel that >> having this symmetry (syntactic and >> semantic side) makes the model more >> elegant and clearer. Some people will be >> looking for something like this. >> Essentially, a SemanticFrame would >> represent a gestalt-like conceptual >> construction that represents the meaning >> of a lexical entry. >> >> I have chosen the following definition >> for the "SemanticFrame" class: A >> Semantic Frame is a coherent structure of >> related concepts that are related >> such that without knowledge of all of >> them, one does not have complete >> knowledge of any one; they are in that >> sense types of gestalt. The coherent >> structure is represented by one or more >> predicates from a given ontology. >> >> I'm not sure what this brings us, it >> adds an extra class (which >> inevitably increases complexity and >> confusion) for no technical advantage. >> That is do we really have a concrete >> example where it would be good to use >> a SemanticFrame instead of a LexicalSense? >> >> >> >> Also, I am not sure that the >> axiomatization of SemanticFrame as a >> subclass of LexicalSense makes sense... >> in particular is it not the case >> that every LexicalSense is a >> SemanticFrame as it refers to a concept >> in the >> ontology and is thus simply mapped to the >> argument structure of the >> ontological predicate, thus every lexical >> sense necessarily is associated >> with a semantic frame. If we agree that >> SemanticFrame ⊒ LexicalSense, we >> should then ask is there is a semantic >> frame that is not a lexical sense? >> Firstly, from the point of view of >> OntoLex *all semantic is in the >> ontology*, therefore a semantic frame >> must also refer to the ontology, >> thus we need only ask if there is such a >> thing as a *non-lexicalized* >> semantic frame? The conclusion that was >> reached in Monnet was that there >> was no such thing, or at least such a >> thing is not relevant is not to >> OntoLex (as we only wish to describe how >> ontologies are lexicalized), thus >> we could say that LexicalSense ≡ >> SemanticFrame and eliminate the >> unnecessary synonym from the model. >> >> >> >> >From a strategic standpoint, I think >> that we should avoid adding the >> semantic frame in because "people will be >> looking for something like this". >> The fact that people will look for this >> means that if they find something >> with a name like this that doesn't >> actually work like they expect then they >> are guaranteed to misuse it! Instead, if >> they find a clear documentation of >> why such an object does not exist (i.e, >> "semantics is in the ontology") >> then that will help them far more than >> introducing a confusing subclass.. >> >> >> >> The definition as it stands currently is >> also weak for similar reasons.... >> if a semantic frame is a "structure >> represented by one or more predicates >> from an ontology", why is it in the >> lexicon not entirely in the ontology?? >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> Please check the ontology, the examples >> etc. and help me to debug the >> ontology, description and examples. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Philipp. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano >> >> >> >> 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> >> >> >> >> Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS) >> >> Raum 2.307 >> >> Universität Bielefeld >> >> Inspiration 1 >> >> 33619 Bielefeld >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano >> >> AG Semantic Computing >> >> Exzellenzcluster für Cognitive >> Interaction Technology (CITEC) >> >> Universität Bielefeld >> >> >> >> Tel: +49 521 106 12249 >> <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249> >> >> Fax: +49 521 106 6560 >> <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%206560> >> >> Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> >> >> >> >> Office CITEC-2.307 >> >> Universitätsstr. 21-25 >> >> 33615 Bielefeld, NRW >> >> Germany >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano >> AG Semantic Computing >> Exzellenzcluster für Cognitive >> Interaction Technology (CITEC) >> Universität Bielefeld >> >> Tel: +49 521 106 12249 >> <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249> >> Fax: +49 521 106 6560 >> <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%206560> >> Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> >> >> Office CITEC-2.307 >> Universitätsstr. 21-25 >> 33615 Bielefeld, NRW >> Germany >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano >> AG Semantic Computing >> Exzellenzcluster für Cognitive >> Interaction Technology (CITEC) >> Universität Bielefeld >> >> Tel: +49 521 106 12249 >> <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249> >> Fax: +49 521 106 6560 >> <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%206560> >> Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> >> >> Office CITEC-2.307 >> Universitätsstr. 21-25 >> 33615 Bielefeld, NRW >> Germany >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Manuel Fiorelli >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano >> AG Semantic Computing >> Exzellenzcluster für Cognitive Interaction >> Technology (CITEC) >> >> >> Universität Bielefeld >> >> Tel: +49 521 106 12249 >> <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249> >> Fax: +49 521 106 6560 >> <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%206560> >> Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> >> >> Office CITEC-2.307 >> Universitätsstr. 21-25 >> 33615 Bielefeld, NRW >> Germany >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Manuel Fiorelli >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano >> AG Semantic Computing >> Exzellenzcluster für Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC) >> Universität Bielefeld >> >> Tel: +49 521 106 12249 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249> >> Fax: +49 521 106 6560 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%206560> >> Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> >> >> Office CITEC-2.307 >> Universitätsstr. 21-25 >> 33615 Bielefeld, NRW >> Germany >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Manuel Fiorelli > > -- > -- > Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano > AG Semantic Computing > Exzellenzcluster für Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC) > Universität Bielefeld > > Tel:+49 521 106 12249 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249> > Fax:+49 521 106 6560 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%206560> > Mail:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> > > Office CITEC-2.307 > Universitätsstr. 21-25 > 33615 Bielefeld, NRW > Germany > > > > > -- > Manuel Fiorelli -- -- Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano AG Semantic Computing Exzellenzcluster für Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC) Universität Bielefeld Tel: +49 521 106 12249 Fax: +49 521 106 6560 Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de Office CITEC-2.307 Universitätsstr. 21-25 33615 Bielefeld, NRW Germany
Received on Friday, 1 August 2014 09:53:36 UTC