Re: synsem module

Hi Philipp, John, All

thanks you for the update on the synsem module and the interesting example.
By first, a minor mistake: the sell lexical entry uses the canonical form
of the buy lexical entry.

I agree with Philipp that buy and sell are semantically related, however I
found in FrameNet a different pattern: there are two frames [1,2], which
represent different perspectives on the same non lexical frame [3].

I agree also with John that we should map the subject and the object of the
predicate. However, in the given example I suspect that "seller", "buyer"
and moreover "exchanged good" are not really binary relations on the
domain. In fact, I think they are roles of an N-ary relation, which is
usually modeled as a subject resource having different properties
associated with each role. In this case the subject would be a
distinguished resource describing the specific event, which in turn has a
buyer, a seller and an exchanged good.

Finally, I noticed that Philipp split the description of the semantic frame
in two parts, which related to sell and buy, respectively. I wonder if the
description is understandable, if we take the two parts together, as they
appear to an agent processing RDF.

[1]
https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frameIndex.xml?frame=Commerce_sell
[2]
https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frameIndex.xml?frame=Commerce_buy
[3]
https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frameIndex.xml?frame=Commerce_goods-transfer



2014-07-31 16:02 GMT+02:00 John P. McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>:

> Hello,
>
> A quick couple of points; firstly we should avoid using the same property
> to represent multiple semantically different relations, that is we should
> not have a 'sense' linking both a frame and a sense, and a 'sense'  linking
> an entry and a sense. It is also my understanding that the sense owns its
> frame and as such we should put the link from the sense to the frame,
> although this is mostly not technically relevant.
>
> Secondly, it is important to state how the semantic frames map to the
> *actual* semantic frame, that is the ontology predicates, this is achieved
> on the sense level with objOfProp, subjOfProp and isA... and has to be
> repeated for the frame object.
>
> Regards,
> John
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Philipp Cimiano <
> cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>
>> Dear Fahad and Francesca, Armano, Manuel et al.
>>
>> thanks for your contributions to this thread. We have agreed on one of
>> our last telcos to add Semantic Frames into the model, in particular into
>> the synsem module.
>>
>> However, there is not yet a 100% agreement on how to do this. If you
>> contribute to this, then we will make sure that the representation fits
>> your needs.
>>
>> I attach an example (what is now Examples/synsem/example10.ttl in the GIT
>> project). I show how to verbs "sell" and "buy" are linked to the same frame
>> "exchange_goods_for_money".
>>
>> This is done via their syntactic behaviours that are linked to the same
>> frame. The diffrent mappings between syntactic arguments and roles are
>> expressed through subFrames and frameArgs.
>>
>> If this is what you want, it would have a small impact on the model only.
>> requiring to introduce:
>>
>> 1) a class "SemanticFrame"
>> 2) a property "semFrame" relating syntactic frames to their semantic
>> frames
>> 3) a property "semArg" to identify a semantic argument of a frame
>> 4) overload the property "sense" so that it can also have "Frames" (in
>> addition to Lexical Entries) as domain
>>
>> Let me know if this is what you want.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Philipp.
>>
>> Am 23.07.14 12:38, schrieb Anas Fahad Khan:
>>
>>  Hi everyone
>>>
>>> We (at ILC in Pisa) are currently working on converting a lexical
>>> resource (Parole Simple Clips) into rdf using lemon. Right now we are
>>> working on representing verb meanings and we're having to deal with the
>>> kinds of issues you’re discussing in this thread.
>>>
>>> >From our perspective having something like a semantic frame would be an
>>> extremely good idea since in our lexical resource verbs (and nouns) have
>>> separate senses and predicative representations in addition to referring to
>>> concepts in an ontology (via a mapping between senses and references). This
>>> predicative representation could then be described or linked to by the
>>> semantic frame since it might turn out that we want to keep information
>>> about a predicative representation of a word meaning and its argument
>>> structure separate from the reference of a sense.
>>>
>>> In the lemon cookbook, lemon:isA seems to have been used in this way (to
>>> refer to a separate predicative representation), although it isn’t 100%
>>> clear.
>>>
>>> :cat lemon:sense [ lemon:reference ontology:Cat ;
>>> lemon:isA :isa_cat ] .
>>>
>>> As Armando has mentioned in the thread there is a certain tension
>>> between ontolex as a normative model (e.g.,“you should put your lexical
>>> information here and your semantic information there”) and as a resource
>>> that enables the translation and conversion of previously existing
>>> resources taking into consideration the fact that they may well have
>>> diverse conceptual and theoretical underpinnings.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Fahad and Francesca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Manuel Fiorelli <manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>>
>>>  Dear Philipp, All
>>>>
>>>> thanks very much for you explanation. Meanwhile, I had also the time to
>>>> read the documentation of the module more carefully.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2014-07-22 22:06 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano <
>>>> cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>   Hi Manuel, all,
>>>>>
>>>>>  thanks for raising this issue. You will find below my answers...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 18.07.14 16:39, schrieb Manuel Fiorelli:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Dear Philipp, All
>>>>>
>>>>>  Following the discussion during the today's meeting (especially
>>>>> Armando's speech), I've some questions to assess my understanding of
>>>>> the
>>>>> problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Wordreference provides three "meanings" for the word "waken":
>>>>>
>>>>>    - waken (vi) = become awake
>>>>>    - waken (tr) = cause to become awake
>>>>>    - waken (vi) = interest, etc: be aroused
>>>>>
>>>>> First question: are these three "lexical senses" for the single lexical
>>>>> entry "waken", or are them three difference lexical entries.
>>>>>
>>>>> My intuition is that this is one lexical entry, with two different
>>>>> syntactic behaviours and three different (lexical) senses.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   If the answer is: they are different lexical entries, please skip the
>>>>> rest of the email. Otherwise, if they are three senses for the same
>>>>> lexical
>>>>> entry, please read below.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So the answer is: yes, they are different lexical entries.
>>>>>
>>>>>   I am pretty sure that the first and third senses do not evoke (sorry
>>>>> for the wrong term) the same frame as the second sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct, non of them evokes the same frame I would say.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  I am happy to know that I did not make a mistake on the basics :-D
>>>>
>>>>   Furthermore, I do agree that there is no 1-1 correspondence between
>>>>
>>>>> senses and semantic frames, because there might be different words
>>>>> that in
>>>>> different contexts evokes the same semantic frame.
>>>>>
>>>>>    In my opinion the correspondence between syntactic and semantic
>>>>> frames
>>>>> is not obvious, as well:
>>>>>
>>>>>    1. the same syntactic frame (eg. transitive verb) might be used by a
>>>>>    lexical entry to express different frames.
>>>>>
>>>>>   Yes, that is true. That can be expressed with the current model as
>>>>> only
>>>>> a subset of the syntactic behaviours are linked to a particular sense.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> In the examples on the Wiki, I found that syntactic behaviours are
>>>> linked
>>>> to lexical entries.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    1. the same semantic frame might be realized differently by
>>>>> different
>>>>>    words.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have an example for this?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Mmm... I have not an example right now. However, as a very informal
>>>> example, consider the lexical entries "father" and "dad". I am not sure
>>>> they are "predicative", as the word capital is. But let pretended they
>>>> are.
>>>> Imagine that we want to map "X is father of Y" and "X is the dad of Y"
>>>> to X
>>>> :father Y.
>>>>
>>>> My question is: how many semantic frames do we need?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The way we could do this is as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) A lexical entry $lex$ has a given syntactic behaviour $syn$, $syn$
>>>>> is
>>>>> linked to one or more frames $f$, which are linked to a particular
>>>>> sense
>>>>> and have frame Argument (frameArg) that are linked to syntactic
>>>>> arguments
>>>>> of the syntactic behaviour.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) As a shortcut, we could infer that a frameArg is a semArg of the
>>>>> corresponding associated (lexical) Sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) Thus, a lexical entry could have diff. syntactic behaviours,
>>>>> different
>>>>> senses and different semantic frames associated to the syntactic
>>>>> behaviours
>>>>> and linked to a particular sense of that word.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Could you please rewrite one of the examples from the wiki, by using
>>>> this
>>>> new model?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  As I said, I can provide a small example if you give me some material
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks again for the opportunity. However, as I said, re-reading the
>>>> specification actually clarified most of my concerns.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2014-07-18 15:30 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano <
>>>>> cimiano@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#>
>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#> .
>>>>>> @prefix synsem: <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/synsem#>
>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/synsem#> .
>>>>>> @prefix lexinfo: <http://lexinfo.net/ontology/2.0/lexinfo.owl#>
>>>>>> <http://lexinfo.net/ontology/2.0/lexinfo.owl#> .
>>>>>> @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>
>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>.
>>>>>> @prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>
>>>>>> <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>
>>>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/ontology/product>;
>>>>>>                                  synsem:subjOfProp :launch_arg1;
>>>>>>                                  synsem:objOfProp :launch_arg2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :launch_subframe2 ontolex:reference
>>>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/ontology/launchDate>
>>>>>> <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#>
>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#> .
>>>>>> @prefix synsem: <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/synsem#>
>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/synsem#> .
>>>>>> @prefix lexinfo: <http://lexinfo.net/ontology/2.0/lexinfo.owl#>
>>>>>> <http://lexinfo.net/ontology/2.0/lexinfo.owl#> .
>>>>>> @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/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>
>>>>>> <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#>
>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#> .
>>>>>> @prefix synsem: <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/synsem#>
>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/synsem#> .
>>>>>> @prefix lexinfo: <http://lexinfo.net/ontology/2.0/lexinfo.owl#>
>>>>>> <http://lexinfo.net/ontology/2.0/lexinfo.owl#> .
>>>>>> @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>
>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>.
>>>>>> @prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>
>>>>>> <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>
>>>>>> <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#>
>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/synsem#> .
>>>>>> @prefix lexinfo: <http://lexinfo.net/ontology/2.0/lexinfo.owl#>
>>>>>> <http://lexinfo.net/ontology/2.0/lexinfo.owl#> .
>>>>>> @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>
>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>.
>>>>>> @prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>
>>>>>> <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>
>>>>>> <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
>>>>>> <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
>>>>>> <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; 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> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Manuel Fiorelli
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Manuel Fiorelli
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>


-- 
Manuel Fiorelli