Re: synsem module

Hi Fahad, Francesca, all,

I will not be at the telco tomorrow due to being busy at Coling, but I will
provide some comments on the proposal

   - 'Predicates' should not be included in the modelling of SynSem, as
   predicates are something clearly defined by the ontology. A duplicate
   mechanism for semantics is not needed in lemon/OntoLex as we have a good
   semantic model (OWL) in contrast to a pure lexicon model like LMF, which
   must define its own semantic model.
   - I still have no clue what a 'predicative representation' is... it
   seems entirely unnecessary in LMF, but perhaps I am wrong here?
   - Arguments cannot have references to an ontology, they represent slots
   that should be filled in the logical representation defined by the
   ontology. The proposal here seems to confuse references with domains (that
   is the class of object referenced by the argument rather than the actual
   values referred to by the argument, when the frame is realized).
   - The SynSemCorrespondence object from LMF is frankly verbose and
   unnecessarily so, it occupies 14 triples in your proposal, where as direct
   linking of semantic and syntactic arguments would take only 3 triples, and
   URI reuse as in *lemon* requires 0 triples! Is there any justification
   for this complex and verbose modelling?

Regards,

John


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Fahad Khan <anasfkhan81@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Philipp
>
> We've tried to put our money where our mouth is so here is a rough and
> ready version in RDF of the buy/sell example  as well as a diagram of part
> of the example, as inspired by a more LMF type aproach:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dojqhFMHTswFWUarQAbeVo3ap6_UjDLyN9gTPydqr_g/edit
>
> Cheers,
>
> Fahad & Francesca
>
>
> On 22 August 2014 10:37, Fahad Khan <anasfkhan81@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Philipp,
>> Sorry for the delay in responding,  we have been on holiday too the last
>> couple of weeks.  We were planning to send something to the list before we
>> went away, but it turns out the translation was harder to do than we
>> thought (and our collective knowledge of lmf less comprehensive) and we
>> weren't entirely happy with what we came up with.  However we will send you
>> a slightly polished version of our proposed example next week before the
>> telco -- after having hopefully discussed it with colleagues far more well
>> versed in lmf than us.
>> Cheers
>> Fahad and Francesca
>>  Dear all,
>>
>>    I returned from holidays end of last week. Given that some people are
>> still on holidays, I propose we have our next telco on Friday 29th at the
>> regular slot, i.e. 15:00 (CET). I will send out an announcement soon.
>>
>> @Fahad and Francesca: regarding our email thread before the holidays,
>> would you please be so kind to send an example of the modelling of frames
>> that is in your view appropriate, an LMF document would be fine for now so
>> that we can study the LMF modelling in more detail in the next telco and
>> then propose appropriate vocabulary elements in the synsem module to do the
>> job. Starting from LMF seems a good idea to me as I mentione a few weeks
>> ago.
>>
>> I will continue working with the vartrans and metadata modules from next
>> week on until we receive the input form Fahad and Francesca to continue the
>> work on the synsem module.
>>
>> I regard the ontolex and decomp modules as largely finished. Please check
>> the ontologies and examples carefully so that we can soon agree to release
>> them.
>>
>> Looking forward to continuing with our work.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Philipp.
>>
>> Am 02.08.14 18:46, schrieb Manuel Fiorelli:
>>
>>  Hi Philipp, All
>>
>>  sorry for the delayed response, which is in fact quite simple.  See
>> below.
>>
>> 2014-08-01 11:53 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano <
>> cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>:
>>
>>>
>>> Am 01.08.14 00:10, schrieb Manuel Fiorelli:
>>>
>>>   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?
>>>
>>
>>  I used the word "objection", which is quite a strong word. Maybe
>> "observation" would have been a better choice. Nevertheless, I agree with
>> you that we can continue the discussion after the holidays.
>>
>>  Meanwhile, happy holidays to everybody listening to this thread, and
>> the rest of the OntoLex community :-D
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>