Re: synsem module

Hi,


On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Fahad Khan <anasfkhan81@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear John,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> We partly agree on your points, especially about the redundancy of some
> modules. We want to use this LMF style treatment as a starting point for
> further discussion.
>
> As for the the use of reference for selectional preferences we can see
> your point (maybe instead we can use a different relation such as "domain"
> instead of "reference").
>
> What we're still not sure about is the fact that predicates should only be
> in the ontology: where the ontology in this case represents the extensions
> of lexical items. The problem we have is that for example, one can
> understand the senses of "buy" and "sell" in this example to represent two
> different predicates but just one class of "actions" (e.g.,
> purchase_exchange_actions): where the predicate represents a different
> "linguistically" motivated way of looking at the same class of events.
>
> If you want to make "buy" and "sell" one predicate as in the Ontolex
> example that was given earlier on, i see practical as well as theoretical
> problems. Practically, you force all those who have two predicates in their
> resource to go and check which should be merged.
>
The question of whether to model buy and sell as a single event or as two
events that entail each other is an interesting question in general, but it
is a conceptual modelling issue, rather than a lexical issue. As long as
the lexicon can capture how each entry interfaces with predicates defined
in the ontology, such details of the lexical modelling should not matter.
It is also unavoidable that when dealing with legacy resources, some work
will be needed to harmonize with any defined OntoLex model.

>
> Also, what about semantic role labeling? the first argument of the sell
> predicate is an agent according to PSC. So is the first argument of the buy
> predicate.  It is because the same action is conceptualized in different
> ways in language. But on the ontological level, these different roles point
> to the same participant in the action (eg. The buyer is beneficiary in one
> case and agent in another).
>
> Overall it seems to us there exists information related to semantic
> predicates (as they are used in lexical resources we know) which seems to
> pertain more to word use, and to the linguistic rather than to the
> ontological level. But, we think this would a good matter for discussion.
>
Such linguistic features can be captured by annotations on the arguments as
required.

>
> As for the SynSemCorrespondence, indeed it is verbose to implement, but
> consider also that instead of having to laboriously map lots of individual
> cases of syntactic and semantic arguments you can just define a reified
> object that represents without redundancy a whole class of such mappings.
> For instance in Parole Simple Clips, you'd have thousands of instances all
> pointing to one class of mappings, such as IsoTrivalent, or IsoBivalent.
> The synsemcorrespondence object enables you to do this.
>
As I said, the merging of the syntactic and semantic arguments as proposed
by *lemon* is maximally efficient as it requires no extra triples, it also
has several other advantages, most notably it is easier to query and work
with.

Regards,
John

>
>
> Cheers,
> Francesca + Fahad
>
>
> On 28 August 2014 12:19, John P. McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>