Re: varstrans.owl

Hi Philipp,

As you may have guessed I don't agree with this. We are not working with
strings we are defining a lexical model and as such the first two
definitions are not applicable to our domain, that is we don't work with
strings we work with senses and entries and forms! By your logic,
translation is actually a relationship between forms not entries, as the
form "Katze" translates to "cat" and the form "Katzen" translates to "cats".

The idea of calling the 'translation' property
'crosslingualequivalentsense' would be in opposition to standard
lexicographic practice as well as inconsistent with most existing lexical
resources. Furthermore, it encourages the confounding practice of putting
translation between lexical entries.

It is clear (at least to me) that translation is a property that must
involve the meaning of the word, and not including the sense would
undermine the robustness and usability of resources created with the model
by condoning ambiguous cross-lingual linking between resources.

Regards,
John


On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Philipp Cimiano <
cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>  and the last email for today. I would like to propose a terminological
> change for the vartrans module.
>
> We had a lot of discussion about the notion of translation a few months
> ago, showing that the notion of translation is indeed quite ambiguous,
> between:
>
> 1) the process of translation a source string into a target string
> 2) the result of this process
> 3) the relation between two "equivalent" senses in to different languages
>
> I would like to propose a deeper change to the vartrans module, that is
> the one of using "translation" only for the result of translating some
> source string into a target string as an opaque relationin some context,
> under some conditions etc.
>
> If we want to be technically precise and say that there is a relation of
> cross-lingual translational equivalence between two senses, then we should
> use a more technical relation such as "CrossLingualEquivalentSense".
>
> Many people use "translation" as an opaque relation denoting the result of
> translating one string into another and are puzzled by the fact.
>
> If we want to be technically precise and say that translational
> equivalence is a relation between senses and not lexical entries, then we
> should also use a more technical term such as "CrossLingualEquivalentSense"
> and leave the more vague "translation" term for the relation between two
> lexical entries that can be translated into reach other in *some* context.
>
> Sorry for opening this discussion again, but I believe it is for the
> robustness and usability of the model to rethink this at least once more.
> It is now the right moment given that I am aiming to finalize the vartrans
> module in the near time.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Philipp.
>
> --
> --
> 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
>
>
>