- From: Anas Fahad Khan <Fahad.Khan@ilc.cnr.it>
- Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 13:06:15 +0000
- To: public-ontolex@w3.org
Dear Philipp, and everyone else Having looked over the example briefly. We have a few initial comments to make. a) in our resource what you call syntactic and semantic frames are attached to sense objects. For example the verb dare has two meanings in Italian, in one it has three arguments as in the English give, and in the other it has two arguments and means something like to face, in the sense of being in certain alignment with something else. These are both attached to the same lexical entry/lemma, and so the syntactic and semantic frames are attached to the sense object in this example. But even if you don't think the syntactic frame should generally be attached to the sense object (in LMF you can attach a syntactic frame to either a lexical entry or a sense), for us, it makes more sense to have a semantic frame attached to a sense object rather than directly to a lexical entry. This way there is no need to also overload the sense mapping, since the Semantic Frame does not point to a sense object anymore. Also perhaps in general we should make provision for a semantic frame/predicative argument structure to have an event as an argument, at least in the case of Verbal predicates. In addition it might be a nice idea to define a set of objects that represent mappings between a syntactic and semantic frame. For example specifying whether the first argument of the syntactic frame maps to the first argument of the semantic frame, etc. This is how it is done in Parole Simple Clips. b) This is a more general point and if it has already been addressed before we apologise. But, we get the feeling -- in particular after having spoken with more senior and more experienced colleagues -- that some of the discussions about semantic frames are actually going over old territory that's already been gone over several times before, for example in the definition of LMF. Wouldn't it be wise to use how LMF -- or other similarly 'definitive' resources or standards -- treats these issues as a starting point, and then see where maybe we can simplify things, or make changes when the necessity of linking to an external ontology or dataset raises additional issues which weren't forseen by the designers of LMF? Cheers, Fahad + Francesca Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> ha scritto: > 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 "semFrame" 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 cookbook, 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> 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> >>> : >>> >>>> 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>: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> :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. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> <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; 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 >>>>> <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; 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> 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 >>>>> >>>>> Fax: +49 521 106 12412 >>>>> >>>>> Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS) >>>>> >>>>> Raum 2.307 >>>>> >>>>> Universität Bielefeld >>>>> >>>>> Inspiration 1 >>>>> >>>>> 33619 Bielefeld >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 13:08:14 UTC