- From: Manuel Fiorelli <manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 00:10:02 +0200
- To: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Cc: "John P. McCrae" <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGDmdGh8YT0W6dAU5BTykdhEfkdCyzZ7hOwBE-AjC2MKt=953Q@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Philipp, All my answers below. 2014-07-31 21:56 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> : > John, Manuel, all, > > thanks for your email. > > I reply to both John and Manuel below... > > Regards,for each role: i.e. a frame for the sele > > Philipp. > > Am 31.07.14 16:23, schrieb Manuel Fiorelli: > > 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. > > > Thanks, already updated. > > > 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]. > > > Yes, I have seen this in Framenet. Nevertheless, it is really a subjective > decision whether they represent the same frame or not. > I have decided to model them as the same frame in my example, which is > legitimate as they both refer to an exchange of goods for money, just the > perspective is different, but the perspective, I assume, can not be > captured in the ontology. Hope you are with me here for the sake of the > example. I am not saying they should not be different frames in general ... > While I do not consider myself a super-expert in frame semantics, I agree with you that "buy" and "sell" should refer to the same frame at a deeper semantic level, which is where an ontology operates. > > 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. > > > Yes, this answers also to John's comments. I have regarded frames as > essentially represented a reified situation or event so that every property > represents a frame argument or slot via a binary property that has the > situaton or event as subject. I agree that this might not be general > enough. > > John: would you please update the example so that it is appropriate in > your understanding? Thanks. > > > 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 > > OK, I did not find the later frame this morning when looking into > Framenet. I could directly use this Framenet frame as example. > In any case, Manuel, I am not sure what your point is here. What exactly > is not understandable in your view? > My objection is that you split the description of the semantic frame into two blocks. In each block, you associated the frame with subframes, each one associating a semantic role with a syntactic argument. Having these two blocks, I can easily understand that the semantic frame has three roles, which maps to the syntactic arguments. Conversely, it I consider these two blocks together, as they are in reality, then I am not sure I can easily spot the "shape" of the semantic frame. > Is there any relation between the three frames mentioned above in FrameNet? > > In the page about Commerce_goods-transfer ( https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frameIndex.xml?frame=Commerce_sell), you can find a section titled "Frame-frame Relations". It seems that this frame "Is Perspectivized in" the other two frames. > Btw. do framenet frames and framenet FEs have URIs that one can refer to? > > I didn't find any official RDF version of Framenet. > > > 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 "semFrameuri" 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 cookboourik, 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. >>>>>>> uri >>>>>>> :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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarurids, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 <%2B49%20521%20106%2012249> >>>>>> Fax: +49 521 106 6560 <%2B49%20521%20106%206560> >>>>>> 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 <%2B49%20521%20106%2012249> >>> Fax: +49 521 106 6560 <%2B49%20521%20106%206560> >>> 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
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2014 22:10:34 UTC