- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:30:20 +0200
- To: public-ontolex@w3.org
- Message-ID: <53C9216C.20200@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Dear all,
a better example showing a more complex frame is the following
representing a "launch"-frame:
@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 : <> .
:launch a ontolex:LexicalEntry ;
lexinfo:partOfSpeech lexinfo:verb ;
ontolex:canonicalForm :launch_canonical_form;
synsem:synBehavior :launch_transitive_pp;
ontolex:sense :launch_semframe.
:launch_canonical_form ontolex:writtenRep "launch"@en.
:launch_transitive_pp a lexinfo:TransitivePPFrame;
lexinfo:subject :launch_arg1 ;
lexinfo:directObject :launch_arg2 ;
lexinfo:prepositionalAdjunct :launch_arg3.
:launch_arg3 synsem:marker :in ;
synsem:optional "true"^^xsd:boolean .
:launch_semframe a synsem:SemanticFrame;
synsem:subsense :launch_subframe1;
synsem:subsense :launch_subframe2.
:launch_subframe1 ontolex:reference <http://dbpedia.org/ontology/product>;
synsem:subjOfProp :launch_arg1;
synsem:objOfProp :launch_arg2.
:launch_subframe2 ontolex:reference
<http://dbpedia.org/ontology/launchDate>;
synsem:subjOfProp :launch_arg2;
synsem:objOfProp :launch_arg3.
Regards,
Philipp.
Am 18.07.14 13:31, schrieb Philipp Cimiano:
> 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
--
--
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 13:30:51 UTC