RE: lexicalization count

Dear Philipp,

 

thanks very much for your resuming email.

 

I will reply to it more in details asap, in the meanwhile, a short note
about the “numberOfXXX” properties.

 

I would go for names which are homogeneous with VoID similar properties
(void:entities, void:triples), and thus, have something like:

 

lime:lexicalEntries

lime:lexicalizations

lime:senses

lime:references

 

(modulo ratios obviously :DDD ).

 

Cheers,

 

Armando

 

 

From: Philipp Cimiano [mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 3:06 PM
To: public-ontolex@w3.org
Subject: Re: lexicalization count

 

Armando, all,
 
 yes that would be ok from my point of view.

// 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.


Then:

lime:language (unified with ontolex:language, extended here to domain
lime:LanguageCoverage

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

Note that several linguisticModels can co-exist in principle in a dataset...

lime:type: providing a type for the resource in question, e.g. bilingual
lexicon, lexicon, ..., domain is void:Dataset and range is not specified

lime:languageCoverage with domain void:Datase and range
lime:LanguageCoverage.

lime:LanguageCoverage has a language, a linguistic Model and all the
counting properties above are defined for it.

If this is a base model we can agree upon then I will update the wiki
description and the ontology.

Let me know your comments on this.

Regards,

Philipp.

Am 23.05.14 13:49, schrieb Armando Stellato:

Hi all,

 

Just copied and pasted from our Ontolex-Lime proposal , an open discussion
about the lexicalizations count (which is not about them be ratios or
integers :P ).

 


6. Lexicalization core triples: senses or what?


 

Senses act as reifications of the relationships between LexicalEntries and
Conceptual Entities (be them LexicalConcepts or entities of the lexicalized
ontology). In effect, a single sense is always 1-1 (it links a single
Lexical Entry with a single Conceptual Entity)

The ontolex model has a shortcut for the relationship (mediated by senses)
between LexicalEntries and LexicalConcept: ontolex:denotes.

 

We would propose to formally consider the number of “denotes triples”
(triples with predicate == ontolex:denotes) to obtain the count. Obviously,
this information may not always be available (not explicit nor inferred),
though the detail of how to obtain this are just technicalities.

 

[added wrt the proposal] So, in shorter words, we propose to formally count
“lexicalizations” as the number of ontoresource <--> lexicalEntry links, and
not as the number of (linked) senses.

 

To support our claim, please note the following case:

1.      a lexicon exists (independently of an ontology), with sense
descriptions for its lexical entries, and with one lexical entry having two
very close senses (two smooth variations of a broad meaning)

2.      the lexicon is used to lexicalize an ontology

3.      the authors of the Lexicalization decide to collapse the two senses
into the same ontology concept

4.      the two triples connecting the two similar senses to the same
ontology concept entail the same ontolex:denotes triple

5.      to the purpose of counting the lexicalizations of that lexical
concept, the single triple count on ontolex:denotes is more appropriate than
counting the two senses of a same LexicalEntry linked to the same concept.

 

Would that be ok?

 

Cheers,

 

Armando

 






-- 
 
Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
 
Phone: +49 521 106 12249
Fax: +49 521 106 12412
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