- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 20:26:40 +0100
- To: "John P. McCrae" <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- CC: Gilles Sérasset <Gilles.Serasset@imag.fr>, "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <5307A870.8060708@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Hi John, all, these issues have been adressed during the telco today, right? We agreed to introduce a separate translation property. We have to talk about whether to keep the confidence property in the model. The decision on this was not clear. I wish you all a nice weekend! Philipp. Am 21.02.14 14:58, schrieb John P. McCrae: > Hi all, > > Reading through the spec, I have 3 main comments to discuss > > 1. Why do we only talk about reified variation, cannot I not use a > single property to link senses? > 2. Why do we propose using a property to indicate the type of > variation unless it is a translation, when we introduce a subclass? > 3. How do we intend to define "translation confidence", this is > surely a property that is specific to each resource? > > Regards, > John > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Philipp Cimiano > <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de > <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote: > > Dear all, > > I would like to invite you all to the 44th (!) Friday ontolex > telco, at 15:00 (CET). > > See this link for access details: > https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2014.21.02,_15-16_pm_CET > > I think our only topic is to finally sort out the translation / > variant issues. > > Talk to you tomorrow, > > Philipp. > > Am 20.02.14 22:36, schrieb John P. McCrae: >> Yes, I am not sure "normal people" understand what is meant by >> "subsumption" or "shared superconcept" either! >> >> Gilles' example is essentially the same as the translation >> "gehen"=>"to go" from German to English >> >> I can say that "ich gehe zum Post"/"I go to the post office" but >> most Germans look at me funny when I say "ich gehe nach Rußland" >> (for non-Germans this implies I am walking to Russia) >> >> As such we can say that "gehen" has reference "MovementByWalking" >> and "to go" has reference "Movement". If we take the definition >> of translation as it stands, this means that "gehen" is not a >> translation of "to go". The only solution would be to create an >> extra sense of "to go" in English that refers to >> "MovementByWalking", which is an artificial solution from the >> point of view in English. >> >> I don't think it is a good solution either to say that "gehen" >> and "to go" are cultural equivalents for obvious reasons. >> >> Regards, >> John >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Philipp Cimiano >> <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote: >> >> John, >> >> I know that "directly ontologically related either through >> subsumption or via a shared superconcept" is sort of >> meaningless, but normal people that do not understand OWL >> understand; in some sense this refers to an explicitly >> materialized concept hierarchy and directly means then: >> direct super or superconcept. >> >> In any case, I am fine with changing the definitions, that's >> what we should discuss in our telco tomorrow. >> >> But a question in return: it is not clear to me how we >> formally distinguish the cases of "translation" and "cultural >> equivalent". >> >> We should IMHO distinguish a lexical substituion that has no >> change form an ontological point of view and a lexical >> substituion that implies a change from an ontological point >> of view. >> >> Best, >> >> Philipp. >> >> Am 20.02.14 22:13, schrieb John P. McCrae: >>> Well... we shouldn't say this. >>> >>> We also shouldn't be saying things like "directly >>> ontologically related either through subsumption or via a >>> shared superconcept." (which is meaningless, as everything >>> has a shared superconcept owl:Thing). >>> >>> The reason is as follows: "lexical" translation is a >>> "lexical" property defined in the "lexicon", as such the >>> definitions should be explainable in lexical. Or put another >>> way, if we wish to say two word senses have the same >>> reference, we can do that giving them the same reference! >>> The translation property indicates that there is a lexical >>> substitution possible in the translation process. >>> >>> We should also be more careful about implications on the >>> ontology. In particular, we wrote a paper about this, and it >>> is very clear from that paper that equivalence of sense can >>> not imply equivalence of references: >>> http://www.lemon-model.net/papers/senses.pdf >>> >>> Regards, >>> John >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Philipp Cimiano >>> <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >>> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote: >>> >>> John, all, >>> >>> The thing is that we define "Translation" as implying >>> same references. That has an implication, although we do >>> not model this axiomatically. >>> >>> Are we on the same line? >>> >>> Philipp. >>> >>> Am 20.02.14 21:55, schrieb John P. McCrae: >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> I don't think we should be able to infer any >>>> ontological relation especially not owl:sameAs from a >>>> translation property. The translation property simply >>>> means that you could consider one of the senses to >>>> "align" with the foreign term in translation (with the >>>> definition of align being fuzzy). We merely distinguish >>>> between translations and cultural-equivalent, which >>>> describe whether there is an intentional change in the >>>> meaning of a sentence. If you want to say that there is >>>> ontological equivalence that should be done in the >>>> ontology only. >>>> >>>> To answer Philipp's earlier question, some interesting >>>> examples of cognates are "Tisch"@de (=table) and >>>> "discus"@la (=disc) or "mandibola"@it (=jaw) and >>>> "mandibles"@en >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Philipp Cimiano >>>> <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >>>> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 <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 <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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Gilles Sérasset >>>>>>> GETALP-LIG BP 53 - F-38041 Grenoble >>>>>>> Cedex 9 >>>>>>> Phone: +33 4 76 51 43 80 >>>>>>> <tel:%2B33%204%2076%2051%2043%2080> >>>>>>> Fax: +33 4 76 63 56 86 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Gilles Sérasset >>>>> GETALP-LIG BP 53 - F-38041 Grenoble Cedex 9 >>>>> Phone: +33 4 76 51 43 80 >>>>> <tel:%2B33%204%2076%2051%2043%2080> >>>>> Fax: +33 4 76 63 56 86 >>>>> <tel:%2B33%C2%A04%2076%2063%2056%2086> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> 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 <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 <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 <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 Friday, 21 February 2014 19:27:14 UTC