Re: current draft of the spec

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.

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)


> 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
>
Could you also explain this in words?? ;)
>
>
> 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.


>
> 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


-- 
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