Re: synsem module

Hi,

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Philipp Cimiano <
cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:

>  Dear all,
>
>  I am working through the synsem module, see my updates on the GIT
> repository.
>
> I do not have major changes of this module other than the following two:
>
> 1) I have changed a number of definitions to make them clearer, please
> check and let me know if the definitions are fine.
>
> 2) For the sake of symmetry, I propose to add a class "SemanticFrame" as a
> counterpart to Frame, which represents a syntactic frame, essentially
> capturing the valence or subcat behaviour of a given lexical entry. This
> SemanticFrame would essentially be a subclass of LexicalSense, and would
> leave the other parts of the model essentially untouched. I feel that
> having this symmetry (syntactic and semantic side) makes the model more
> elegant and clearer. Some people will be looking for something like this.
> Essentially, a SemanticFrame would represent a gestalt-like conceptual
> construction that represents the meaning of a lexical entry.
>
> I have chosen the following definition for the "SemanticFrame" class: A
> Semantic Frame is a coherent structure of related concepts that are related
> such that without knowledge of all of them, one does not have complete
> knowledge of any one; they are in that sense types of gestalt. The coherent
> structure is represented by one or more predicates from a given ontology.
>
I'm not sure what this brings us, it adds an extra class (which inevitably
increases complexity and confusion) for no technical advantage. That is do
we really have a concrete example where it would be good to use a
SemanticFrame instead of a LexicalSense?

Also, I am not sure that the axiomatization of SemanticFrame as a subclass
of LexicalSense makes sense... in particular is it not the case that every
LexicalSense is a SemanticFrame as it refers to a concept in the ontology
and is thus simply mapped to the argument structure of the ontological
predicate, thus every lexical sense necessarily is associated with a
semantic frame. If we agree that SemanticFrame ⊒ LexicalSense, we should
then ask is there is a semantic frame that is not a lexical sense? Firstly,
from the point of view of OntoLex *all semantic is in the ontology*,
therefore a semantic frame must also refer to the ontology, thus we need
only ask if there is such a thing as a *non-lexicalized* semantic
frame? The conclusion that was reached in Monnet was that there was no such
thing, or at least such a thing is not relevant is not to OntoLex (as we
only wish to describe how ontologies are lexicalized), thus we could say
that LexicalSense ≡ SemanticFrame and eliminate the unnecessary synonym
from the model.

>From a strategic standpoint, I think that we should avoid adding the
semantic frame in because "people will be looking for something like this".
The fact that people will look for this means that if they find something
with a name like this that doesn't actually work like they expect then they
are guaranteed to misuse it! Instead, if they find a clear documentation of
why such an object does not exist (i.e, "semantics is in the ontology")
then that will help them far more than introducing a confusing subclass.

The definition as it stands currently is also weak for similar reasons...
if a semantic frame is a "structure represented by one or more predicates
from an ontology", why is it in the lexicon not entirely in the ontology??

Regards,
John


>
> Please check the ontology, the examples etc. and help me to debug the
> ontology, description and examples.
>
> Best regards,
>
> 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
>
>