- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 12:53:47 +0100
- To: public-ontolex@w3.org
- Message-ID: <52F377CB.6050302@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Hi Jodi, all,
thanks for your message.
Re "gray" and "grey": yes this would be an (unwanted) consequence of the
current definition, so we could extend it as follows:
A single unit of analysis in the lexicon comprising a collection of
forms that are morphologically related or have a single pronunciation
and share the same meaning(s).
I guess that is better?
So grey and gray would be two forms of the same Lexical Entry, as would
be "colour" and "color", but not "FAO" and "Food and Agriculture
Organization".
So roughly we would have: two different writings but one pronunciation
(e.g. colour) => one lexical entry
one writing but different
pronunciations (e.g. privacy) => one lexical entry
Does this correspond to the intutions of others?
Re: FAO and Food and Agriculture Organization: the models does not yet
incoporate anything to state such preferences, but we could certainly do
it. Btw. one could (mis)-use a SKOS-XL property for this, but this is
not something that will be part of the spec. By the way, my example on
the website shows exactly what you say, i.e. that both terms refer to
the same concept.
Re: Definition of (Lexical) Sense, it is (currently) the following:
A language-specific meaning of a lexical entry which abstracts from specific occurrences of the lemma. This class is a lexical sense as it represents a sense of a lexical item.
Cheers,
Philipp.
Am 06.02.14 11:43, schrieb Jody Foo:
> Hi all,
>
> So, "gray" and "grey" would be lexical variants?
>
> Regarding "FAO" and "Food and Agriculture Organization", from a
> terminological view, these would both be terms connected to the
> concept "Food and Agriculture Organization". In a terminology use
> scenario, one of these would be "recommended" and the other may or may
> not be "forbidden".
>
> Is there any definition of "sense" used in the OntoLex project?
>
> regards,
>
> Jody
>
> On 6 feb 2014, at 08:54, Philipp Cimiano
> <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote:
>
>> Elena, all,
>>
>> thanks for your message. According to our definitions, "FAO" and
>> "Food and Agriculture Organization" can not be two forms of the same
>> lexical entry, as we define Lexical Entry as follows:
>>
>> A single unit of analysis in the lexicon,
>> i.e. a collection of morphologically related forms
>>
>>
>>
>> Now, according to my understanding "FAO" and "Food and Agriculture
>> Organization" are not morphologically related, right?
>>
>> Importantly: if they are two lexical entries then, they can not have
>> the *same* sense, but possibly equivalent senses (whatever the latter
>> turns out to mean ;-)
>>
>> Good luck with you class!
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Philipp.
>>
>>
>> Am 06.02.14 08:43, schrieb Elena Montiel Ponsoda:
>>> Dear all,
>>> very brief because I have to go to class...
>>> In our proposal Lexical Variants are what John defines as Form
>>> Variants, so these types would be equivalent to me.
>>> FAO and Food and Agriculture Organization are two forms of the same
>>> Lexical Entry, since, as Philipp says, they do not have different
>>> senses, but the same sense (or equivalent senses).
>>> Terminological Variants are the ones in which senses are slightly
>>> different, and therefore it makes sense to have differentiated senses.
>>> But I also admit that sometimes the border line between lexical and
>>> terminological variants is a bit fuzzy.
>>> In that case, maybe we should simply allow the user to decide which
>>> modelling option better suits his objectives.
>>>
>>> More later.
>>> Best,
>>> elena.
>>>
>>> El 06/02/2014 6:55, Philipp Cimiano escribió:
>>>> John, all,
>>>>
>>>> right, my mistake. I forgot that sense and reference are inverse
>>>> functional and functional, respectively. Apologies. I have now
>>>> added this to the current final model specification.
>>>>
>>>> So my axiom was not correct indeed.
>>>>
>>>> What I was rather trying to say is: if we say that two Lexical
>>>> Entries are lexical variants, are we saying that they share the
>>>> same set of references? I guess so.
>>>>
>>>> But according to our definition then, FAO and Food and Agriculture
>>>> Organization are two different lexical entries that are lexical
>>>> variants.
>>>> While the have the same reference, they would have different senses
>>>> (that are nevertheless equivalent, not the same)? This is a bit
>>>> puzzling but ok.
>>>>
>>>> It then seems then to me that terminological variants are then a
>>>> subclass of lexical variants?
>>>>
>>>> I will work on the document, in particular on the variation module
>>>> now.
>>>>
>>>> Your examples are good I think. Let's try.
>>>>
>>>> Philipp.
>>>>
>>>> Am 04.02.14 11:28, schrieb John P. McCrae:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am a bit confused about what we are proposing here. It has been
>>>>> discussed many times that a word (lexical entry) has a number of
>>>>> word (lexical) senses and that these are defined by reference to
>>>>> an ontology. As such each lexical sense is the pair (lexical
>>>>> entry, ontology entity), i.e., each sense is unique to its entry.
>>>>> As such I am puzzled as to why we are discussing this axiom:
>>>>>
>>>>> \forall x,y,z,s LexicalVariant(x) \wedge variantSource(x,y) \wedge
>>>>> targetSource(x,z) \wedge sense(y,s) \rightarrow sense(z,s)
>>>>>
>>>>> This would lead to contradictions as the property sense should be
>>>>> inverse functional.
>>>>>
>>>>> As best as I understand, the goal is to differentiate between
>>>>> "variants that have the same sense(s) and reference(s)" and
>>>>> "variants that are extensionally equivalent". This is precisely
>>>>> why we introduced the *Lexical Concept * to differentiate between
>>>>> this level.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can I suggest the following? We should have following 4 classes of
>>>>> variants (introducing one new one), as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Form variants
>>>>> * Lexical variants
>>>>> * Terminological (sense) variants
>>>>> * Semantic (conceptual) variants
>>>>>
>>>>> Each of which correspond to the four core classes with the
>>>>> following axiomatization (where y is {form, lexical,
>>>>> terminological, semantic} and X is {Form, LexicalEntry,
>>>>> LexicalSense, LexicalConcept})
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a property yVariant which range X and domain X
>>>>> There is a class YVariant
>>>>> ∀ x,y,z : YVariant(x) ∧ variantSource(x,y) ∧ variantTarget(x,z) ⇒
>>>>> yVariant(y, z)
>>>>>
>>>>> (although I don't think this is easy to capture in OWL)
>>>>>
>>>>> As such, it is clear that we have the following example of each of
>>>>> these:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Form variant: cat/cats
>>>>> * Lexical variant: FAO/Food and Agriculture Organization
>>>>> * Terminological variant: tuberculosis/phthisis
>>>>> * Semantic variant: risotto/rice dish
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it
>>>>> <mailto:aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Just a couple of comments, one on using OWL for Philipp’s
>>>>> axioms, see below
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 30, 2014, at 8:19:31 PM , Philipp Cimiano
>>>>> <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>>>>> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Elena,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> see below as well...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 30.01.14 16:05, schrieb Elena Montiel Ponsoda:
>>>>>>> Dear Philipp,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for this.
>>>>>>> Some comments between lines.
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Elena, Jorge, Lupe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> El 30/01/2014 9:04, Philipp Cimiano escribió:
>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have been working on the final spec this morning. Please
>>>>>>>> have a look at the modified examples.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also added an example of a Spanish lexicon so that we
>>>>>>>> show how we would get interoperability between lexica in
>>>>>>>> different languages, an important aspect to hint at briefly
>>>>>>>> I think.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Spanish people: could you please check ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Other than that, I have been trying to define a bit better
>>>>>>>> the types of variants that we are considering (as already
>>>>>>>> discussed with Lupe and Jorge during our last telco).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it would be important to clarify what *we* mean
>>>>>>>> with these things. Let me make a proposal for lexical
>>>>>>>> variant and terminological variant. From there we can move
>>>>>>>> to semantic variant and translation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) Lexical Variant:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lexical variants were defined as those variants that are
>>>>>>>> semantically coincident (same meaning) but formally
>>>>>>>> different, and which are mainly motivated by grammatical
>>>>>>>> requirements, style, and linguistic economy (helping to
>>>>>>>> avoid excessive denominative repetition and improving
>>>>>>>> textual coherence). With respect to the ontology-lexicon
>>>>>>>> model, two lexical variants are different lexical entries
>>>>>>>> that have the same sense(s) and reference(s) and are thus
>>>>>>>> semantically equivalent. LexicalVarient thus represents a
>>>>>>>> relation between two Lexical Entries.
>>>>>>> From our point of view, and in fact you have an example of
>>>>>>> this in the core model specification (see color vs. colour),
>>>>>>> two lexical variants are different forms of the same lexical
>>>>>>> entry.
>>>>>> Well, as I said LexicalVariant is supposed to be a relation
>>>>>> between lexical entries and color and colour are two
>>>>>> different forms of the same LexicalEntry. So I would not say
>>>>>> that color and colour are lexical variants, would you? In my
>>>>>> view they are two forms of the same lexical entry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you understand by "semantically coincident (same
>>>>>>> meaning)"? That they have the same ontology reference??
>>>>>>> In the case of Terminological variants, would you state the
>>>>>>> same? Would they also be "semantically coincident but
>>>>>>> formally and also *pragmatically *different"?? (See also the
>>>>>>> definition that we propose for Terminological variants
>>>>>>> below). If we remember correctly, the problem with the
>>>>>>> previous definitions was that we had three levels:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * formally (different forms)
>>>>>>> * semantically (different senses)
>>>>>>> * conceptually (different ontology references)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, that is exactly what I am trying to understand, the
>>>>>> definition "semantically coincident (same meaning)" came from
>>>>>> UPM. I am just trying to find out what it means and proposing
>>>>>> some more precise definitions
>>>>>
>>>>> and a fourth: “pragmatically” (different contexts of usage:
>>>>> jargon, technical terms, social connotations,
>>>>> geographically-bound, etc.)
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, we would thus have:
>>>>>>>> \forall x,y LexicalVariant(x) \wedge variantSource(x,y)
>>>>>>>> \rightarrow LexicalEntry(y) (expressible in OWL?)
>>>>>
>>>>> yes, if variantSource is used typically for this purpose:
>>>>>
>>>>> variantSource rdfs:domain LexicalVariant
>>>>> variantSource rdfs:range LexicalEntry
>>>>>
>>>>> otherwise:
>>>>>
>>>>> LexicalVariant rdfs:subClassOf (variantSource only LexicalEntry)
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> \forall x,y LexicalVariant(x) \wedge variantTarget(x,y)
>>>>>>>> \rightarrow LexicalEntry(y) (expressible in OWL?)
>>>>>
>>>>> similarly:
>>>>>
>>>>> variantTarget rdfs:domain LexicalVariant
>>>>> variantTarget rdfs:range LexicalEntry
>>>>>
>>>>> otherwise:
>>>>>
>>>>> LexicalVariant rdfs:subClassOf (variantTarget only LexicalEntry)
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Further:
>>>>>>>> \forall x,y,z,s LexicalVariant(x) \wedge variantSource(x,y)
>>>>>>>> \wedge targetSource(x,z) \wedge sense(y,s) \rightarrow
>>>>>>>> sense(z,s)
>>>>>
>>>>> This is harder, but this property chain should work:
>>>>>
>>>>> [inverse(targetSource) *o* variantSource *o* sense]
>>>>> subPropertyOf sense
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> \forall x,y,z,s LexicalVariant(x) \wedge variantSource(x,y)
>>>>>>>> \wedge targetSource(x,z) \wedge sense(z,s) \rightarrow
>>>>>>>> sense(y,s)
>>>>>
>>>>> [inverse(variantSource) *o* targetSource *o* sense]
>>>>> subPropertyOf sense
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that they have the same concept follows from the
>>>>>>>> functionality of "reference", i.e.
>>>>>>>> \forall s,r1,r2 reference(s,r1) \wedge reference(s,r2)
>>>>>>>> \rightarrow r1=r2
>>>>>
>>>>> and this needs that “reference" be a functional property:
>>>>>
>>>>> Functional(reference)
>>>>>
>>>>> We can follow the same OWL patterns for the terminological
>>>>> variant axioms :)
>>>>> Ciao
>>>>> Aldo
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could you also explain this in words?? ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, the axioms simply say that for the case of a Lexical
>>>>>> Variant both lexical entries that stand in relation to each
>>>>>> other share the same set of sense (and consequently the same
>>>>>> reference because reference is functional). Is this what you
>>>>>> understand by lexicalVariant?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically, lexical variants would thus be intensionally,
>>>>>> semantically and pragmatically equivalent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I simply give the question back: what does: "semantically
>>>>>> coincident (same meaning)" mean? I was just making a proposal
>>>>>> that we can discard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do we agree on this understanding of lexical variant?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) Terminological Variant:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Terminological Variations are relations between
>>>>>>>> LexicalEntries that have two (different) senses that
>>>>>>>> however have the same concept as reference. One could thus
>>>>>>>> say that the meanings of these lexical entries are
>>>>>>>> extensionally equivalent, but differ intensionally and
>>>>>>>> pragmatically in that the lexical entries are used in
>>>>>>>> different contexts, domains, have a different register or
>>>>>>>> have different pragmatic connotations.
>>>>>>> Here we would suggest following a similar structure as the
>>>>>>> one followed in the definition of LexicalVariant to be
>>>>>>> coherent. In that sense, we would propose:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Terminological variants have the same concept as reference,
>>>>>>> but differ formally and pragmatically in that the lexical
>>>>>>> entries are used in different contexts, domains, have a
>>>>>>> different register or have different pragmatic connotations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With respect to the ontology-lexicon model, a
>>>>>>> TerminologialVariant connects two different lexical senses
>>>>>>> of two different lexical entries that have the same or
>>>>>>> equivalent ontology references.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fine, so they have different senses, but the same reference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A question: is TerminologicalVariant a relation between
>>>>>> senses (with the same reference) or lexical entries (having
>>>>>> different senses with the same reference)???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So we have again:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> \forall x,y TerminologicalVariant(x) \wedge
>>>>>>>> variantSource(x,y) \rightarrow LexicalEntry(y) (expressible
>>>>>>>> in OWL?)
>>>>>>>> \forall x,y TerminologicalVariant(x) \wedge
>>>>>>>> variantTarget(x,y) \rightarrow LexicalEntry(y) (expressible
>>>>>>>> in OWL?)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Further:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> \forall x,y,z \exists LexicalVariant(x) \wedge
>>>>>>>> variantSource(x,y) \wedge targetSource(x,z) \wedge
>>>>>>>> sense(y,s1) \rightarrow \exists s2,r sense(x,s2) \wedge s1
>>>>>>>> != s2 \wedge reference(s1,r) \wedge reference(s2,r)
>>>>>>>> And the converse axiom:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> \forall x,y,z \exists LexicalVariant(x) \wedge
>>>>>>>> variantSource(x,y) \wedge targetSource(x,z) \wedge
>>>>>>>> sense(x,s1) \rightarrow \exists s2,r sense(y,s2) \wedge s1
>>>>>>>> != s2 \wedge reference(s1,r) \wedge reference(s2,r)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do we agree on this understanding of terminological variant?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Enough ontolex for me today ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Elena Montiel-Ponsoda
>>>>>>> Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
>>>>>>> Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
>>>>>>> Facultad de Informática
>>>>>>> Campus de Montegancedo s/n
>>>>>>> Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, España
>>>>>>> www.oeg-upm.net <http://www.oeg-upm.net/>
>>>>>>> Tel.(+34) 91 336 36 70 <tel:%28%2B34%29%2091%20336%2036%2070>
>>>>>>> Fax(+34) 91 352 48 19 <tel:%28%2B34%29%2091%20352%2048%2019>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> --
>>> Elena Montiel-Ponsoda
>>> Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
>>> Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
>>> Facultad de Informática
>>> Campus de Montegancedo s/n
>>> Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, España
>>> www.oeg-upm.net
>>> Tel. (+34) 91 336 36 70
>>> Fax (+34) 91 352 48 19
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
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
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2014 11:54:17 UTC