Re: lexicalization count

Dear John, all,

  I was to propose a number of changes to the ontolex core and vartrans 
model and I had introduced them already in the OWL files. But John was 
very quick in noticing these changes and pointing me to the fact that 
they are not in line with the current spec. Well, I should first have 
discussed these proposed changes in the list, which I am doing now:

1) I propose to introduce a property ontolex:gloss as a subclass of 
rdfs:comment to allow for adding definition of senses. While one could 
use rdfs:comment for sure, people will be looking for such a property. 
The recent work by Roberto Navigli on transforming Babelnet to lemon 
shows that people look for such a property and, if not available, 
reinvent it themselves.

2) I propose to change the property contains (dom: Lexical Concept, 
range: Lexical Sense) into a property called "lexicalizedBy" and the 
inverse "lexicalizes". The reason is that working with the model to 
transform some resources (e.g. TBX, see forthcoming email on this), I 
realized that "contains" suggest a meronymic relation that need not be 
there in a strict sense. It is sort of there in WordNet-style resources 
where the Synset is regarded as a set that *contains* senses. However, 
this treatment seems to be too specific for WordNet style resources. In 
general, what I think this relation should say is that a certain 
LexicalConcept is lexically expressed by a number of senses (in 
different languages). Therefore, I favour the relation "lexicalizes".

3) I propose to redefine the translation relation so that it can hold 
also between Lexical Entries instead of Lexical Senses. I realized that 
in many cases, lexical resources abstract from the particular senses 
that are translations of each other. This is the case for many bilingual 
dictionaries. I propose thus to overload the translation relation so 
that the following holds:

variantSource o trans o variantTarget -> translation

sense o translation o sense^-1 -> translation

where Translation \equiv exists trans.Self

Let me know your comments,

Philipp.

Am 28.05.14 18:06, schrieb Armando Stellato:
>
> 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,andwith 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


-- 

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