- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 20:33:22 +0100
- To: "John P. McCrae" <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- CC: Elena Montiel Ponsoda <elemontiel@gmail.com>, public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <53065882.9040202@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
John,
I have not thought about this case, but I have not limited the
model either ;-)
Nothing prevents us from adding a subclass "InterlingualLexicalVariant"
as a subclass of both LexicalVariant and InterlingualVariant if we want.
Do you have a concrete example?
Philipp.
Am 20.02.14 11:02, schrieb John P. McCrae:
> Hi,
>
> The image looks good, but I wonder why you limit interlingual variants
> to only semantic variants... is it not possible to have interlingual
> lexical variants, e.g., "has cognate"?
>
> Regards,
> John
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:16 AM, Philipp Cimiano
> <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote:
>
> Dear Elena, all,
>
> I have created a diagram (attached) that in my view summarizes
> the current state of our agreement.
>
> Elena/all: please let me know if this is not the case.
>
> Please also check the definitions on the wiki on
> InterlingualVariants and let me know if this corresponds to your
> understanding expressed below.
>
> Talk to you tomorrow!
>
> Philipp.
>
> Am 13.02.14 13:13, schrieb Elena Montiel Ponsoda:
>> Dear Philipp,
>>
>> Thanks for the updates.
>> I have direclty modified the text in the specification (maybe I
>> should not?), but we can still reconsider this...
>> On the one hand, I thought it is important to specify already at
>> the introduction that there is one type of variation that is
>> established between LexicalEntries (i.e., define
>> LexicalVariants), how do you see it?
>> On the other, I was not so happy with the "terminology" used when
>> dealing with cross-lingual variants, specifically when stating
>> that Translations are literal translations...
>> From the Translation discipline perspective, this would be
>> problematic, IMHO.
>>
>> * I think we should refer to them as Translations or
>> Interlingual variants (in general). That is what people
>> interested in multilinguality will be looking for, I think.
>> If you think that the MultiWordNet community would be happier
>> with Inter-lingual variant is fine, but the translation or
>> terminology community will be looking for "translation".
>> Would it be feasible to keep both denominations? Since this
>> is a lexicon model (for ontologies, of course, but still we
>> are at the lexical level), I would be inclined to think that
>> the most appropriate term is translation, but I am open to
>> change my mind... :)
>> * As for the types of translation we may account for, I would
>> talk of "equivalents", but not identify "translations"
>> exclusivly and explicitly with "literal translations". I was
>> trying to make this clear during out last telco, but maybe I
>> failed... :) That is why I was proposing direct equivalents,
>> to distinguish them from cultural equivalents.
>>
>> As for the question in your e-mail referring to "paraphrase",
>> yes, I think we could put it that way...
>> Best,
>> Elena
>>
>> El 13/02/2014 10:02, Philipp Cimiano escribió:
>>> Hi Elena, all,
>>>
>>> I have updated the wiki reflecting the discussion of last week;
>>> however, I have not introduced SenseRelations explicitly yet. I
>>> am not sure we should.
>>>
>>> In any case, we agree in principle on the categories mentioned
>>> by you Elena, but I have one question on the lexical equivalent:
>>> this is essentially a paraphrase, right?
>>>
>>> Philipp.
>>>
>>> Am 07.02.14 17:27, schrieb Elena Montiel Ponsoda:
>>>> Dear John,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the summary (Philipp, do not stay away... we missed
>>>> you... ;)).
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the Translation part, I think we had a nice
>>>> discussion, but we need to work a little bit more on that.
>>>> I tend to think of Term Variants as within the same language
>>>> (intra-lingua), and Translations between languages
>>>> (inter-lingua). For this reason, I am not so sure I would like
>>>> to consider Translation a Term Variant, but I will further
>>>> think about it... :)
>>>>
>>>> In a paper we at UPM just got accepted at the LREC conference,
>>>> we were proposing 3 different types of *translation equivalents*.
>>>>
>>>> 1. *direct equivalent *(what people normally understad as
>>>> "pure translation"): The two terms describe semantically
>>>> equivalent entities that refer to entities that exist in
>>>> both cultures and languages. E.g. surrogate mother, madre
>>>> de alquiler, mère porteuse. It is true that they could
>>>> further be considered *dimensional variants*, since each
>>>> language/culture emphasizes a different aspect of the concept.
>>>> 2. *cultural equivalent*: Typically, the two terms describe
>>>> entities that are not semantically but pragmatically
>>>> equivalent, since they describe similar situations in
>>>> different cultures and languages. E.g., “Ecole Normal” (FR)
>>>> “Teachers college” (EN). The Prime Minister and
>>>> Busdeskanzler example would also be valid here. And I think
>>>> this is the type of *link or cross-lingual alignment you
>>>> would use in **Interlingual Indexes for WordNets when no
>>>> "direct equivalent" in available*.
>>>> 3. *lexical equivalent*: It is said of those terms in
>>>> different languages that usually point to the same entity,
>>>> but one of the verbalizes the original term by using target
>>>> language words. E.g., “Ecole Normal” (FR) “(French) Normal
>>>> School” (EN). The concept of Normal School does not exist
>>>> in England, but English people have verbalized it in English.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does it make sense?
>>>> We will also work on this and update the wiki with
>>>> examples/code accordingly.
>>>> Have a nice weekend!
>>>> Elena.
>>>>
>>>> El 07/02/2014 16:59, Philipp Cimiano escribió:
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> very nice, it seems that the telco was very productive without
>>>>> me, I should consider staying away now and then ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I will work this into the current document next week.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Philipp.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 07.02.14 16:29, schrieb John P. McCrae:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So today at the telco we had myself, Paul, Francesca, Elena
>>>>>> and Lupe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We discussed based on Philipp's proposal
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I propose we go with the following four variants +
>>>>>> translation:
>>>>>> 1) FormVariant: Relation between two forms of one lexical
>>>>>> entry
>>>>>> 2) LexicalVariant: Relation between two lexical entries
>>>>>> that are related by some well-defined string-operation
>>>>>> (e.g. creating an initialism like in FAO)
>>>>>> 3) TerminlogicalVariant: Relation between two lexical
>>>>>> senses (with the same reference) of two lexical entries;
>>>>>> the lexical entries are thus uniquely determined; the
>>>>>> senses might have different contextual and pragmatic
>>>>>> conditions (register, etc.)
>>>>>> 4) SemanticVariant: As 3) Relation between senses with
>>>>>> references that are ontologically related, either by
>>>>>> subsumption or are children of a common superconcept (see
>>>>>> my paella and risotto example)
>>>>>> 5) Translation: As with 3), but involving entries from
>>>>>> different languages.
>>>>>> So we would have one relation between forms
>>>>>> (FormVariant), one relation between lexical entries
>>>>>> (LexicalVariant), and three relations at the sense level
>>>>>> (TerminologicalVariant, SemanticVariant and Translation).
>>>>>> We might think about introducing a SenseRelation as a
>>>>>> superclass of TerminologicalVariant, SemanticVariant and
>>>>>> Translation. Hypernym and Hyponym would also be a
>>>>>> SenseRelation in this sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The discussion was as follows:
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> *Form variants*: We discussed the need to distinguish form
>>>>>> (inflectional) variants as opposed to lexical (entry)
>>>>>> variants. The primary reason for this was to separate
>>>>>> variation between LexicalEntrys and Form (as defined in the
>>>>>> core). It was felt that the distinction between form and
>>>>>> lexical variant was too fine-grained and that the modelling
>>>>>> of this as variants is probably not appropriate. For example,
>>>>>> if we consider
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :Cat a LexicalEntry
>>>>>> ontolex:canonicalForm :Cat#CanonicalForm (writtenRep
>>>>>> "cat"@eng),
>>>>>> ontolex:otherForm :Cat#PluralForm (writtenRep "cats"@eng) .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then modelling the relationship as
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :Cat#CanonicalForm ontolex:plural :Cat#PluralForm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is inferior to (especially in the case that there are large
>>>>>> number of inflections of a single lemma, such as an Italian verb)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :Cat#CanonicalForm ontolex:number ontolex:singular .
>>>>>> :Cat#PluralForm ontolex:number ontolex:plural .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For these reasons, it was preferred not to introduce form
>>>>>> variants
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Term(inological)Variants/SemanticVariant: *We agreed with
>>>>>> the idea of introducing a superclass SenseRelation subsuming
>>>>>> both TermVariants and SemanticVariants as follows
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * TermVariants have the same reference (e.g., diachronic,
>>>>>> diatopic etc.)
>>>>>> * SemanticVariants have different references (e.g.,
>>>>>> antonymy, "similar", (maybe?) hypernymy)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was also suggested to shorten the name
>>>>>> TerminologicalVariant to TermVariant
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Translation: *We discussed the idea of distinguishing
>>>>>> between (Lemma/Term) *Translation* and *Culturally-Equivalent
>>>>>> Translation *by saying *Translation * is a *TermVariant * and
>>>>>> *Culturally-Equivalent Translation* is a *Semantic Variant.*
>>>>>> It was suggested that we consider introducing a class
>>>>>> *MultilingualVariant** subsuming *Translation *and*C.E.T.
>>>>>> *and subsumed by *SenseRelation, *for relations between
>>>>>> languages, this would also include broader/narrower
>>>>>> cross-lingual alignments as used in Interlingual Indexes for
>>>>>> WordNets etc.
>>>>>> * or cross-lingual variant or inter-lingual variant
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I attach a diagram to show the proposal
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>> Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos
>>>> 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
>>
>> --
>> Elena Montiel-Ponsoda
>> Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
>> Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
>> Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos
>> 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
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2014 19:33:59 UTC