- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:31:20 +0200
- To: public-ontolex@w3.org
- Message-ID: <53C90588.4060401@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Hi Armando, all,
here follow a few coded examples (examples 3, 4 and 5 from Github
project: Examples/synsem
Example 3:
@prefix ontolex: <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#> .
@prefix synsem: <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/synsem#> .
@prefix lexinfo: <http://lexinfo.net/ontology/2.0/lexinfo.owl#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>.
@prefix : <> .
:own_lex a ontolex:LexicalEntry ;
synsem:canonicalForm :own_form ;
synsem:synBehavior :own_synframe ;
ontolex:sense :own_semframe.
:own_form ontolex:writtenRep "own"@en.
:own_synframe a lexinfo:TransitiveFrame;
:subject :own_subj;
:dobject :own_obj.
:own_semframe a synsem:SemanticFrame;
ontolex:reference <http://dbpedia.org/ontology/owner>;
synsem:subjOfProp :own_obj;
synsem:objOfProp :own_subj.
:subject owl:subPropertyOf synsem:synArg.
:dobject owl:subPropertyOf synsem:synArg.
Example 4:
@prefix ontolex: <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#> .
@prefix synsem: <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/synsem#> .
@prefix lexinfo: <http://lexinfo.net/ontology/2.0/lexinfo.owl#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>.
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>.
@prefix : <> .
:opening_film_at a ontolex:LexicalEntry ;
lexinfo:partOfSpeech lexinfo:noun ;
ontolex:canonicalForm :opening_film_form;
synsem:synBehavior :opening_film_nounpp;
ontolex:sense :opening_film_frame.
:opening_film_form a ontolex:Form;
ontolex:writtenRep "opening film"@en.
:opening_film_nounpp a lexinfo:NounPPFrame;
lexinfo:subject :opening_film_arg1;
lexinfo:prepositionalArg :opening_film_arg2.
:opening_film_frame a synsem:SemanticFrame;
ontolex:reference <http://dbpedia.org/ontology/openingFilm>;
ontolex:subjOfProp :opening_film_arg2;
ontolex:objOfProp :opening_film_arg1.
:opening_film_arg2 synsem:marker :at ;
synsem:optional "true"^^xsd:boolean .
:at a ontolex:LexicalEntry ;
ontolex:canonicalForm :at_from .
:at_from ontolex:writtenRep "at"@en .
Example 5:
@prefix synsem: <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/synsem#> .
@prefix lexinfo: <http://lexinfo.net/ontology/2.0/lexinfo.owl#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>.
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>.
@prefix : <> .
:graduate_from a ontolex:LexicalEntry ;
lexinfo:partOfSpeech lexinfo:verb ;
ontolex:canonicalForm :graduate_canonical_form;
synsem:synBehavior :graduate_from_intransitivepp;
ontolex:sense :graduate_from_semframe.
:graduate_canonical_form a ontolex:Form;
ontolex:writtenRep "graduate"@en.
:graduate_from_intransitivepp a ontolex:Frame;
lexinfo:subject :graduate_arg1 ;
lexinfo:prepositionalArg :graduate_arg2.
:graduate_from_semframe a synsem:SemanticFrame;
ontolex:reference <http://dbpedia.org/ontology/almaMater>;
ontolex:subjOfProp :graduate_arg1;
ontolex:objOfProp :graduate_arg2.
:graduate_arg2 synsem:marker :from ;
synsem:optional "true"^^xsd:boolean .
:from a ontolex:LexicalEntry ;
ontolex:canonicalForm :from_form .
:from_form ontolex:writtenRep "from"@en .
To me these are all prototypical situations: the situation of somebody
(owner) owning something (owned), the situation of a film being opening
film at some festival, the situation of somebody (a graduate) receiveing
a graduation from some institution. These are clear frames with clear
semantic roles.
Best regards,
Philipp.
Am 18.07.14 12:55, schrieb Armando Stellato:
>
> Hi Philipp,
>
> thanks for the thorough explanation. As I said, I totally agree with
> you on the addition of the class (not sure though if on the core
> module, but..I’ve no strong opinion on that). In any case, this is
> again a matter of how much we want to deal with the coverage of
> existing and variegated lexical resources, which is at the boundary of
> the strict ontolex scope (though yet I find it a good occasion to do it).
>
> I still don’t clearly understand the need to make it a subclass of
> LexicalSense. I understand that a frame more or less is bound to
> senses of given words, but I don’t see it as a LexicalSense itself. In
> some mappings, such as those to semiotics .owl, we have may have
> rougher containments wrt to Meaning/Expression/Reference, but the
> concept of LexicalSense is rather more specific than Meaning.
>
> At most, I would see it as a subclass of LexicalConcept (though I
> would not vote for it either). To me a frame depicts a “situation”,and
> I don’t see the relation with LexicalSense.
>
> …but it may also be very easily that I’m missing something. Maybe a
> coded example would help…
>
> Cheers,
>
> Armando
>
> *From:*Philipp Cimiano [mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 18, 2014 11:06 AM
> *To:* Armando Stellato; 'John P. McCrae'; Armando Stellato; 'John P.
> McCrae'
> *Cc:* public-ontolex@w3.org; public-ontolex@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: synsem module
>
> John, Armando, all,
>
> sorry for my late reply on this issue with the "Semantic Frame".
>
> I still think that it is a good idea to introduce Semantic Frame as a
> subclass of "Lexical Sense". Let me try to argue a bit more:
>
> 1) Of course, the semantics is in the ontology, but as we all know
> frames are not explicit in languages such as OWL / RDF, so the
> "Semantic Frame" class would essentially stand proxy for a structure
> that can be represented in terms of ontology predicates. Imagine I
> have a class "GoodExchange" and a property "Lender" and a property
> "borrower". Then the semantic frame associated to the expression "X
> borrowed Y from Z" is represented by a particular set of properties in
> the ontology, i.e. the binary properties "lender" and "borrower". The
> Semantic Frame is a prox object in the lexicon that binds these
> properties into a unit (gestalt) that expresses the meaning of a
> syntactic frame such as "X borrowed Y from Z". I agree this is in
> principle only syntactic sugar as this can already be represented by
> the current vocabulary we have. The main difference is that it makes
> the fact that at the ontology side we actually have a frame with
> arguments more explicit and clearer, particulary considering the
> following point 2:
>
> 2) The main reason why I am arguing to introduce the SemanticFrame
> class is that it is somehow non-standard to say that a Lexical Sense
> has semanticArguments. This will be strange for many people. It will
> be much clearer if we say that a SemanticFrame has semantic arguments,
> where the SemanticFrames simply stands proxy for a certain ontological
> configuration in the ontology.
>
> So what I am proposing is to redefine the property semArg to have
> SemanticFrame as domain, and making SemanticFrame a subclass of Sense.
> In some sense a SemanticFrame is thus a special case of a Sense that
> is a gestalt-like thing having semantic arguments.
>
> The model is increased by one class, true, that is really the only
> drawback I see. But it makes the model conceptually clearer and more
> accessible I believe. The advantage is that this extension is
> compatible with previous versions. If people stick to the previous
> modelling, the only consequence is that the LexicalSenses the have
> been using so far will be inferred to be SemanticFrames. This does not
> intefere with anyhting they have done and produces the desired inference.
>
> Regards,
>
> Philipp.
>
>
> Am 10.07.14 11:37, schrieb Armando Stellato:
>
> Dear all,
>
> my (really poor) two cents:
>
> I agree mostly with John, except that, well, yes, I wouldn’t be so
> close wrt introducing frames ion general. But I suspect this is
> again a matter of principle: either we want to *only* have a model
> which coherently depicts things in a given way, or we may **also**
> want to represent existing resources according to it. One of the
> things in the limbo between the two approaches has always been the
> representation of existing lexical resources. This is, by
> definition, not in the scope of OntoLex, though, in the absence of
> existing RDF models for lexical resources, inevitably (IMHO) it
> should be addressed.
>
> So, to me it wouldn’t be bad to have a frame resources module, and
> I see a SemanticFrame in there. Again, my preference goes to have
> the possibility of seeing existing resources not depicted by their
> own ontology (e.g. FrameNet ontology), but rather seen under a
> larger umbrella.
>
> However, I don’t see any kind of inclusion (in a sense or the
> other) with LexicalSense, and I better see it as a separate object.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Armando
>
> *From:*johnmccrae@gmail.com <mailto:johnmccrae@gmail.com>
> [mailto:johnmccrae@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *John P. McCrae
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:12 AM
> *To:* Philipp Cimiano; Philipp Cimiano
> *Cc:* public-ontolex@w3.org <mailto:public-ontolex@w3.org>;
> public-ontolex@w3.org <mailto:public-ontolex@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: synsem module
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Philipp Cimiano
> <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
> <mailto: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 <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
> AG Semantic Computing
> Exzellenzcluster für Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
> Universität Bielefeld
>
> Tel: +49 521 106 12249
> Fax: +49 521 106 6560
> Mail:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
>
> Office CITEC-2.307
> Universitätsstr. 21-25
> 33615 Bielefeld, NRW
> Germany
--
--
Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
AG Semantic Computing
Exzellenzcluster für Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
Universität Bielefeld
Tel: +49 521 106 12249
Fax: +49 521 106 6560
Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
Office CITEC-2.307
Universitätsstr. 21-25
33615 Bielefeld, NRW
Germany
Received on Friday, 18 July 2014 11:31:49 UTC