Re: current draft of the spec

Hi Elena,

  see below as well...

Am 30.01.14 16:05, schrieb Elena Montiel Ponsoda:
> 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.
Well, as I said LexicalVariant is supposed to be a relation between 
lexical entries and color and colour are two different forms of the same 
LexicalEntry. So I would not say that color and colour are lexical 
variants, would you? In my view they are two 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)
>
>
Well, that is exactly what I am trying to understand, the definition 
"semantically coincident (same meaning)" came from UPM. I am just trying 
to find out what it means and proposing some more precise definitions

>> 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?? ;)

Well, the axioms simply say that for the case of a Lexical Variant both 
lexical entries that stand in relation to each other share the same set 
of sense (and consequently the same reference because reference is 
functional). Is this what you understand by lexicalVariant?

Basically, lexical variants would thus be intensionally, semantically 
and pragmatically equivalent.

So I simply give the question back: what does: "semantically coincident 
(same meaning)" mean? I was just making a proposal that we can discard.

>>
>> 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.
>

Fine, so they have different senses, but the same reference.

A question: is TerminologicalVariant a relation between senses (with the 
same reference) or lexical entries (having different senses with the 
same reference)???
>
>>
>> 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


-- 

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