- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 14:04:39 +0200
- To: public-ontolex@w3.org
- Message-ID: <54085557.7090202@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Hi Fahad, Francesca, all, I attach a new version of example10.ttl (see also GIT). I have tried to merge the proposals of Fahad/Francesca with my proposal at the same time trying to remain as compact as possible. It would be great if we could discuss this example at the telco tomorrow. In particular, I would like to know whether these is any information that was in your example (Fahad and Francesca) that is not in mine. I will send out access details for the telco in a few minutes. Talk to you tomorrow. Philipp. Am 29.08.14 11:35, schrieb Fahad Khan: > > Hi everyone > > > Here are a few responses to John and Philipp’s comments. Hopefully we > can discuss these further in the call and afterwards in the list too. > One thing I would like to point out at the start is that even though > the emails are being sent out under my (Fahad’s) name and I’m doing > the majority of the typing most of the work on the model is > Francesca’s. Hopefully in the call today most of the explanation will > be her's too:) > > > Our main motivation here is our resistance to stripping all semantics > from the lexicon part especially with respect to the conversion of > legacy resources. In principle we agree with a lot of John & > Philipp’s remarks that go in the direction of preserving semantics by > reference. But it is difficult to see how this impacts us, as people > who have a legacy resource (such as Parole Simple Clips) and want to > use the ontolex model to publish it. > > > Practically speaking we don’t know what to do with the PSC semantic > layer. On the one hand Philip reminds us that Ontolex deals primarily > with "given" ontologies. That leaves our semantic layer out. As you > know we have tried to be faithful to the idea of semantics by > reference in converting PSC using lemon; but we also wanted to publish > all the semantics of PSC; this forced us to create a new ontological > level to accommodate our semantic layer. > > > But this to be honest is not really a well formed ontology, and can > hardly be pointed to by other lexicons (other languages...) without a > lot of manual checking. This is not what we want... we want ontologies > that are reusable even independently from the original lexicon. > > > Our concern is that people with a legacy resource, are just going to > choose the easy way, use the "lexical" basics of the model, like the > lexical entry, the canonical form.... and then add/define their > semantic stuff on top of it, as an extension to the lexical model, > that is without using "reference" to an ontology. Basically they'll > add their semantic layer the way they want it. > > > Nevertheless, for the sake of the argument, why don't we take a > resource of some complexity and try to see how it accomodates in your > best model in a way that is really faithful to the ontolex philosophy, > and at the same time leaving as little information out as possible. > > > We are thinking of completing Parole Simple Clips, as a test case for > this, but it's a big beast. We have started to do this, but when you > tackle the verbs and the predicates, it's even more complex. Maybe > this will give us an idea of how much adjustment legacy resources > would require to be faithful to the "semantics by reference" model, > and how reusable the stuff that ends up on the ontological side. > > Cheers, > Fahad & Francesca > > > > On 29 August 2014 08:34, Philipp Cimiano > <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de > <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote: > > Dear Fahad, all, > > I finally had the chance to look at your proposal in more detail, > I think it is more in line than we might expect at first sight > with the example that I provided a few weeks ago. I attach the > example again for the sake of easier reference. In particular, I > think that: > > 1) The *PredicativeRepresentation*s you are proposing corresponds > to the *SemanticFrame*s that I was proposing. It sort of > represents "the complex predicate expressed by a lexical entry", > where the atomic parts come from a given ontology. Our proposals > differ in that I was attaching the SemanticFrames to the > SyntacticBehaviour via the relation "semFrame", then linking the > frame to the sense. However, we can of course link the "sense" to > the Frame as you propose and then link the Frame to the > corresponding syntactic behaviour. Both are fine from my side. If > you think your modelling here is better, then I have no problem in > endorsing it. > > 2) As John mentioned, our building assumption is that predicates > per se are *only* in the ontology. In this sense, the first > decision to make is whether sell and buy denote the same concept > in the ontology (lemon and myself are agnostic in this respect, > this is a conceptual decision to make). The different perspectives > you mention could be modelled by the SemanticFrame class that I > was proposing, with different mappings between syntactic and > semantic arguments. Information about semantic roles can be > attached as annotations, that's not a problem. Further, the > ontolex model allows you to have two different senses for sell and > buy that nevertheless link to the same ontological class/predicate. > > 3) Note that ontolex was used to interface a lexicon with a given > (domain) ontology, not a linguistic ontology. Agent / Themes / > Beneficiary are linguistic roles rather than roles/relations that > would appear in a (domain) ontology. As John mentions we can > attach these roles to the syntactic arguments without a problem. > > Let's discuss this further today. I will then try to create a new > example that unifies both proposals, mine and Fahads. > > talk to you later, > > Philipp. > > Am 28.08.14 15:01, schrieb John P. McCrae: >> Hi, >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Fahad Khan >> <anasfkhan81@gmail.com <mailto:anasfkhan81@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Dear John, >> >> Thanks for your comments. >> >> We partly agree on your points, especially about the >> redundancy of some modules. We want to use this LMF style >> treatment as a starting point for further discussion. >> >> As for the the use of reference for selectional preferences >> we can see your point (maybe instead we can use a different >> relation such as "domain" instead of "reference"). >> >> What we're still not sure about is the fact that predicates >> should only be in the ontology: where the ontology in this >> case represents the extensions of lexical items. The problem >> we have is that for example, one can understand the senses of >> "buy" and "sell" in this example to represent two different >> predicates but just one class of "actions" (e.g., >> purchase_exchange_actions): where the predicate represents a >> different "linguistically" motivated way of looking at the >> same class of events. >> >> If you want to make "buy" and "sell" one predicate as in the >> Ontolex example that was given earlier on, i see practical as >> well as theoretical problems. Practically, you force all >> those who have two predicates in their resource to go and >> check which should be merged. >> >> The question of whether to model buy and sell as a single event >> or as two events that entail each other is an interesting >> question in general, but it is a conceptual modelling issue, >> rather than a lexical issue. As long as the lexicon can capture >> how each entry interfaces with predicates defined in the >> ontology, such details of the lexical modelling should not >> matter. It is also unavoidable that when dealing with legacy >> resources, some work will be needed to harmonize with any defined >> OntoLex model. >> >> >> Also, what about semantic role labeling? the first argument >> of the sell predicate is an agent according to PSC. So is the >> first argument of the buy predicate. It is because the same >> action is conceptualized in different ways in language. But >> on the ontological level, these different roles point to the >> same participant in the action (eg. The buyer is beneficiary >> in one case and agent in another). >> >> Overall it seems to us there exists information related to >> semantic predicates (as they are used in lexical resources we >> know) which seems to pertain more to word use, and to the >> linguistic rather than to the ontological level. But, we >> think this would a good matter for discussion. >> >> Such linguistic features can be captured by annotations on the >> arguments as required. >> >> >> As for the SynSemCorrespondence, indeed it is verbose to >> implement, but consider also that instead of having to >> laboriously map lots of individual cases of syntactic and >> semantic arguments you can just define a reified object that >> represents without redundancy a whole class of such mappings. >> For instance in Parole Simple Clips, you'd have thousands of >> instances all pointing to one class of mappings, such as >> IsoTrivalent, or IsoBivalent. The synsemcorrespondence object >> enables you to do this. >> >> As I said, the merging of the syntactic and semantic arguments as >> proposed by /lemon/ is maximally efficient as it requires no >> extra triples, it also has several other advantages, most notably >> it is easier to query and work with. >> >> Regards, >> John >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> Francesca + Fahad >> >> >> On 28 August 2014 12:19, John P. McCrae >> <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >> <mailto:jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote: >> >> Hi Fahad, Francesca, all, >> >> I will not be at the telco tomorrow due to being busy at >> Coling, but I will provide some comments on the proposal >> >> * 'Predicates' should not be included in the modelling >> of SynSem, as predicates are something clearly >> defined by the ontology. A duplicate mechanism for >> semantics is not needed in lemon/OntoLex as we have a >> good semantic model (OWL) in contrast to a pure >> lexicon model like LMF, which must define its own >> semantic model. >> * I still have no clue what a 'predicative >> representation' is... it seems entirely unnecessary >> in LMF, but perhaps I am wrong here? >> * Arguments cannot have references to an ontology, they >> represent slots that should be filled in the logical >> representation defined by the ontology. The proposal >> here seems to confuse references with domains (that >> is the class of object referenced by the argument >> rather than the actual values referred to by the >> argument, when the frame is realized). >> * The SynSemCorrespondence object from LMF is frankly >> verbose and unnecessarily so, it occupies 14 triples >> in your proposal, where as direct linking of semantic >> and syntactic arguments would take only 3 triples, >> and URI reuse as in /lemon/ requires 0 triples! Is >> there any justification for this complex and verbose >> modelling? >> >> Regards, >> >> John >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Fahad Khan >> <anasfkhan81@gmail.com <mailto:anasfkhan81@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Dear Philipp >> >> We've tried to put our money where our mouth is so >> here is a rough and ready version in RDF of the >> buy/sell example as well as a diagram of part of the >> example, as inspired by a more LMF type aproach: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dojqhFMHTswFWUarQAbeVo3ap6_UjDLyN9gTPydqr_g/edit >> >> Cheers, >> >> Fahad & Francesca >> >> >> On 22 August 2014 10:37, Fahad Khan >> <anasfkhan81@gmail.com >> <mailto:anasfkhan81@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Dear Philipp, >> Sorry for the delay in responding, we have been >> on holiday too the last couple of weeks. We were >> planning to send something to the list before we >> went away, but it turns out the translation was >> harder to do than we thought (and our collective >> knowledge of lmf less comprehensive) and we >> weren't entirely happy with what we came up with. >> However we will send you a slightly polished >> version of our proposed example next week before >> the telco -- after having hopefully discussed it >> with colleagues far more well versed in lmf than us. >> Cheers >> Fahad and Francesca >> >> Dear all, >> >> I returned from holidays end of last week. >> Given that some people are still on holidays, I >> propose we have our next telco on Friday 29th at >> the regular slot, i.e. 15:00 (CET). I will send >> out an announcement soon. >> >> @Fahad and Francesca: regarding our email thread >> before the holidays, would you please be so kind >> to send an example of the modelling of frames >> that is in your view appropriate, an LMF document >> would be fine for now so that we can study the >> LMF modelling in more detail in the next telco >> and then propose appropriate vocabulary elements >> in the synsem module to do the job. Starting from >> LMF seems a good idea to me as I mentione a few >> weeks ago. >> >> I will continue working with the vartrans and >> metadata modules from next week on until we >> receive the input form Fahad and Francesca to >> continue the work on the synsem module. >> >> I regard the ontolex and decomp modules as >> largely finished. Please check the ontologies and >> examples carefully so that we can soon agree to >> release them. >> >> Looking forward to continuing with our work. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Philipp. >> >> Am 02.08.14 18:46, schrieb Manuel Fiorelli: >>> Hi Philipp, All >>> >>> sorry for the delayed response, which is in fact >>> quite simple. See below. >>> >>> 2014-08-01 11:53 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano >>> <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de >>> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>>: >>> >>> >>> Am 01.08.14 00:10, schrieb Manuel Fiorelli: >>>> 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. >>>> >>> Yes, that is the only objection I can see so >>> far as well. Let's give a deeper look at >>> this after the holidays, ok? >>> >>> >>> I used the word "objection", which is quite a >>> strong word. Maybe "observation" would have been >>> a better choice. Nevertheless, I agree with you >>> that we can continue the discussion after the >>> holidays. >>> >>> Meanwhile, happy holidays to everybody listening >>> to this thread, and the rest of the OntoLex >>> community :-D >> >> -- >> -- >> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano >> AG Semantic Computing >> Exzellenzcluster für Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC) >> Universität Bielefeld >> >> Tel:+49 521 106 12249 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249> >> Fax:+49 521 106 6560 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%206560> >> Mail:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de <mailto: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 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249> > Fax:+49 521 106 6560 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%206560> > Mail:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de <mailto: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
Attachments
- text/plain attachment: example10.ttl
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2014 12:05:18 UTC