- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 21:39:54 +0100
- To: Gilles Sérasset <Gilles.Serasset@imag.fr>, "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <5306681A.2030104@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Dear Gilles, yes you are right. I understand that this might negatively affect the usability of the model. And I am fully aware that people might use it sloppily, actually without to many unwanted implications as long as you do not use an OWL reasoner ;-) The alternative would be to give up the distinction between semantics-preserving interlingual variants (translation) and non-semantics-preserving interlingual variants (cultural equivalents), or call them differently and make translation the superclass. Any opinions on this? I tend to see "translation" indeed as semantics-preserving, but this is only a gut feeling and not well-founded. Another issue: we discussed having a third type of Interlingual variant, something like a "cross-lingual paraphrase" class for the case in which "paella" is paraphrased in English as "typical rice dish from Spanish origin". Elena: I think this is what you had in mind, right? Regards, Philipp. Am 20.02.14 21:31, schrieb Gilles Sérasset: > Dear Philipp, > > Thanks, this clarifies the matter. > > Tough I fear that the encoding of legacy lexica in ontolex will not be > very easy, as most of the time, such lexica does not really make the > difference... I fear many ontolex encoded lexica will use the > Translation relation regardless of the implications when linked to an > ontology. > > Regards, > > Gilles, > > On 20 févr. 2014, at 20:40, Philipp Cimiano > <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de > <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote: > >> Dear Gilles, >> >> thanks for your comment. Yes indeed, if we use "Translation" in the >> case you mention, we would infer that concept:rice owl:sameAs >> concept:cooked_rice. >> >> We would infer equality of punned individuals. Technically, it does >> not follow though that the concepts are equivalent. It is a delicate >> OWL2 issue. >> >> In any case, your statement is correct. If that is not as intended in >> your example (which I assume) then in your case the relation >> "CulturalEquivalent" should be used which is supposed to be used in >> exactly such a case where there is some direct ontological relation >> between both concepts, in our case concept:rice subsumes >> concept:cooked_rice. >> >> So the use of "Translation" is wrong in your case because it has >> unwanted implications. >> >> Do you agree? >> >> Philipp. >> >> Am 20.02.14 10:02, schrieb Gilles Sérasset: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I have a question regarding Translation. >>> >>> Lets take the japanese of 御飯 (gohan), which has a meaning of >>> "cooked rice". >>> Lets take the english term "rice" (which refers to cooked or >>> uncooked rice, indistinctly. >>> >>> I consider both terms as translations of each others, even if they >>> do not share the reference. >>> >>> Indeed, I do think that the Translation relation is useful, as the >>> lexicon should exist even if no conceptualization is available. It >>> is also really useful to encode existing lexica. >>> >>> But with this definition, if my lexicon state that gohan is a >>> translation of rice, then we would legitimately infer that >>> concept:rice owl:sameAs concept:cooked_rice. >>> >>> Isn't it a problem in itself ? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Gilles, >>> >>> >>> >>> On 13 févr. 2014, at 16:22, Philipp Cimiano >>> <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >>> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Elena, >>>> >>>> just to clarify intuitions. I am calling a Translation something >>>> which preserves the reference (no matter if literal or not). >>>> >>>> So according to what I have now it holds that: >>>> >>>> Class: var:Translation >>>> >>>> SubclassOf: >>>> ontolex:InterlingualVariant >>>> ontolex:TermVariant >>>> >>>> rdfs:comment "The relation between two lexical senses in different languages the references of which are the same."@en >>>> >>>> So this means that Translation is a relation between two Lexical >>>> Senses in different languages the reference of which is the same. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, CulturalEquivalent (or simply Equivalent!) is >>>> defined as follows: >>>> >>>> Class: var:CulturalEquivalent >>>> >>>> SubclassOf: >>>> ontolex:InterlingualVariant >>>> ontolex:SemanticVariant >>>> >>>> rdfs:comment "The relation between two lexical senses in different languages the references of which are directly ontologically related either through subsumption or via a shared superconcept."@en >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> i.e. the references are directly ontologically related, does this >>>> make sense? >>>> >>>> Philipp. >>>> >>>> >>>> Am 13.02.14 16:10, schrieb Philipp Cimiano: >>>>> Hi Elena, >>>>> >>>>> see below >>>>> >>>>> 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? >>>>> >>>>> Yes fine, I should remove the restriction from Variants that >>>>> requires LexicalSense, I will do it now. >>>>>> 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... >>>>> Fair enough, if the idea is removing "literal" I am agnostic ;-) >>>>> >>>>>> 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... :) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> OK, so why not having "InterlingualVariant" as a subClass of >>>>> "TermVariant" (instead of TerminologyVariant) and then >>>>> Translation and CulturalEquivalent and "CulturalParaphase" as >>>>> subclasses of InterlingualVariant. >>>>> >>>>> Would that be appropriate? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> * 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. >>>>>> >>>>> Fair enough, if you are arguing for dropping the "literal" I am fine. >>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> 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 >>> >>> -- >>> Gilles Sérasset >>> GETALP-LIG BP 53 - F-38041 Grenoble Cedex 9 >>> Phone: +33 4 76 51 43 80 Fax: +33 4 76 63 56 86 >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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 > > -- > Gilles Sérasset > GETALP-LIG BP 53 - F-38041 Grenoble Cedex 9 > Phone: +33 4 76 51 43 80 Fax: +33 4 76 63 56 86 > -- 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 20:40:25 UTC