W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ontolex@w3.org > August 2014

Re: synsem module

From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 11:53:05 +0200
Message-ID: <53DB6381.4090508@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
To: Manuel Fiorelli <manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com>
CC: "John P. McCrae" <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:36:41 UTC