current draft of the spec

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.

So, we would thus have:

\forall x,y LexicalVariant(x) \wedge variantSource(x,y) \rightarrow 
LexicalEntry(y) (expressible in OWL?)
\forall x,y LexicalVariant(x) \wedge variantTarget(x,y) \rightarrow 
LexicalEntry(y) (expressible in OWL?)

Further:

\forall x,y,z,s LexicalVariant(x) \wedge variantSource(x,y) \wedge 
targetSource(x,z) \wedge sense(y,s) \rightarrow sense(z,s)

\forall x,y,z,s LexicalVariant(x) \wedge variantSource(x,y) \wedge 
targetSource(x,z) \wedge sense(z,s) \rightarrow sense(y,s)


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


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.

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
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