W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ontolex@w3.org > June 2014

Re: lexicalization count

From: Manuel Fiorelli <fiorelli@info.uniroma2.it>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 19:23:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGDmdGiNai3TdoakAzN3O6BVB+KRr5k-+aVibBnh6E2+u04baA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Cc: Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>, "public-ontolex@w3.org" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Dear list,

sorry for double posting. However, I sent the original email from my gmail
account, and the message could be delayed for two days, since it was the
first time I used that account.


2014-06-05 19:11 GMT+02:00 Manuel Fiorelli <manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com>:

> Dear Philipp,
>
> I attached to this email an initial OWL model representing the LIME
> metadata vocabulary.
>
> Let me summarize the model.
>
> The central entity is now the lime:Lexicalization which:
>
>    - provides lexicalizations for an RDF datasets (i.e., a collection of
>    linguistic attachments);
>    - in one natural language;
>    - using one ore more linguistic models (as long as they are used to
>    express the SAME information, up to the expressive power of each model);
>    - possibly referencing a given OntoLex Lexicon.
>
> In the proposed model, the properties from a lexicalization to the target
> dataset and the lexicon are functional.
>
> Since in some usage scenarios we start with an ontology and we want to
> discover lexicalizations for it, we also provide a property that connects
> any void:Dataset to known lexicalizations.
>
> Each lexicalization refers to various ResourceCoverage(s), which provide
> statistics for different types of resources found in the target dataset.
>
> Currently, we have not committed to a specific set of statistics,
> therefore I just introduced the ones already mentioned by Philipp. With
> respect to his proposal, I slightly changed the domain of some of the
> properties. For instance, I do not believe that references (the count of
> distinct references) should be applicable to a Lexicon.
> As already said by Armando, we have a distinct class (lime:LexicalLinkset)
> for expressing the association between a dataset and a conceptualized
> linguistic resource (e.g., WordNet). In fact, this association is close to
> a mapping relation, thus we decided to introduce a distinct class
> LexicalLinkset that extends the standard class void:Dataset. However, we do
> believe that preserving the distinction may be useful.
>
> Despite we have removed the our categorization of linguistic resources, I
> reintroduced the class ConceputualizedLinguisticResource, which should be
> used in conjunction with LexicalLinkset.
>
> In the proposed model, I recreated some classes, such as Lexicon, that
> already exists in the core OntoLex model. We should decide, whether they
> are the same class or not.
>
> Another interesting point of discussion is our choice of providing two
> properties:
>
>    - lang, which indicates the natural language a given lexicalication
>    refers to
>    - language, which is a shortcut to allow a dataset saying: I know
>    there is a lexicalization for me in this natural language.
>
> We should discuss whether these two properties are required, and in case
> which of them unify with ontolex:language.
>
>
> 2014-06-04 19:37 GMT+02:00 Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>:
>
> Dear Philipp,
>>
>>
>>
>> sorry for not catching up earlier with this email. Just came back from
>> LREC and departed immediately for another conf in Taiwan which I’m still
>> attending. Writing “nightwise”…
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok, so, as a first thing, I had a long call with Manuel just now. He will
>> send in the next days something that you can publish on GIT. Obviously,
>> everthing under discussion, but it is just a starting point to have it open
>> and accessible on GIT.
>>
>>
>>
>> I anticipate here some replies to your email:
>>
>>
>>
>> // counting properties (datatype properties, with domain (ontolex:Lexicon
>> OR ontolex:Lexicalization OR void:Dataset OR lime:LanguageCoverage)
>>
>> lime:numberOfLexicalEntries
>> lime:numberOfSenses
>> lime:numberOfLexicalizations (denote-tirples)
>> lime:numberOfReferences -> the number of distinct references used
>>
>> We then need to discuss whether we should also include ratios etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> As said before, we would prefer to use simple names (in the spirit of
>> analoguous properties on void), such as lexicalEntris, senses,
>> lexicalizations, references. Small note: not so sure if to keep the
>> ambiguity “Lexicalization” (as a dataset of lexicalizations) and
>> “lexicalization” as an attachment. It creates then ambiguitirs like the
>> property “lexicalizations” (as number of attachments) and “lexicalization”
>> as pointer to a Lexicalization.
>>
>> But, for the moment, let’s stick with them.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Then:
>>
>> lime:language (unified with ontolex:language, extended here to domain
>> lime:LanguageCoverage
>>
>>
>>
>> Not sure I got it exactly the above. Btw, we will present two different
>> props, and then check what can be unified.
>>
>>
>>
>> lime:linguisticModel: describing by which model/vocabulary information
>> about lexicalization is attached; the domain is void:Dataset and the range
>> is the URI of the vocabulary; lime:linguisticModel is thus a subproperty of
>> void:vocabulary
>>
>>
>>
>> Fine. One note here: we saw now that in the PDF about LIME we sent
>> before, there is one thing that we resolved in one chapter, and left
>> obsolete in one other.
>>
>> Wrt our LIME paper, there is no more languageCoverage (and thus, even no
>> need of changing it to lexicalCoverage as we wrojngly left said at the end
>> of page 2 ) as it has been replaced by Lexicalization. Inside a
>> Lexicalization, we may specify different ResourceCoverage, that is, various
>> “cuts” of coverage for different ontology types (e.g. the coverage for
>> classes, or for properties, or for skos:Concepts ).
>>
>> This also simplifies the terminology (though, as said before,
>> Lexicalization clashes with the name of its own contained attachments).
>>
>>
>>
>> One more point: we left open the problem of addressing links to
>> LexicalConcepts of conceptualized lexical resources (e.g. wordnet).
>>
>> We just resolved it in a decently elegant way. A lexicalization only
>> deals with attachments between OWL/SKOS dataset/vocabulary (the “onto”
>> part) and senses or lexical entris of a lexicon.
>>
>> Attachments to lexicalconcepts (the ones we called
>> lexicalResourceCoverage in our paper) will be dealt in a different way (as
>> it is only implicitly a lexicalization), though reusing existing stuff from
>> void.
>>
>> We would coin the class: LexicalLinkSet as a subclass of void:LinkSet,
>> and it would be used to express the links above.
>>
>>
>>
>> Note that several linguisticModels can co-exist in principle in a
>> dataset...
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure. More precisely, an “onto” Dataset may specify more (known)
>> Lexicalizations . each lexicalizations refers to only one language. One
>> (onto) dataset may have more than one lexicalization per language
>> (obviously); this maybe due to different models being available, or simply
>> to different lexicons being available and linked to the same (onto) dataset.
>>
>> We were thinking (for more compactness) to allow for the specification of
>> more linguisticmodels for the same lexicalization, whenever *exactly*
>> the same lexical content is available (in the same lexicalization). For
>> instance, if SKOSXL and materialized SKOS labels and RDFS labels are
>> available inside the same physical dataset representing a lexicalization,
>> then it is possible to specify them as alternative models inside the same
>> Lexicalization instance.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> lime:type: providing a type for the resource in question, e.g. bilingual
>> lexicon, lexicon, ..., domain is void:Dataset and range is not specified
>>
>>
>>
>> eheh, ok, you know our point of view, so better we leave you and John
>> discussing on what is intopic or offtopic inside OntoLex, then only in the
>> first case, we can give our contribution ;)
>>
>>
>>
>> lime:languageCoverage with domain void:Datase and range
>> lime:LanguageCoverage.
>>
>>
>>
>> ime:LanguageCoverage has a language, a linguistic Model and all the
>> counting properties above are defined for it.
>>
>>
>>
>> ok, replaced by Lexicalization, see above (and also all pages of PDF,
>> except page 2).
>>
>>
>>
>> Think that’s all. Manuel will follow with a specification via email, so
>> that you can put it on GIT.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, I will be unable to participate on (still in conference).
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>>
>> Armando (and Manuel from call ;) )
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Manuel Fiorelli
>



-- 
Manuel Fiorelli
PhD student in Computer and Automation Engineering
Dept. of Civil Engineering and Computer Science
University of Rome "Tor Vergata"
Via del Politecnico 1
00133 Roma, Italy

tel: +39-06-7259-7334
skype: fiorelli.m
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2014 17:23:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:36:40 UTC