Re: synsem module

Hi John,
IF and only IF your remark 1) refers to my remark 1), i was referring to
the synsemFrame (as defined in Philips new example), not to the
synbehavior, which is fine under lexicalEntry.

f.


2014-09-05 14:25 GMT+02:00 John P. McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>:

> Hi,
>
> Apologies that I will not make the telco this afternoon. Some general
> comments:
>
>
>    1. Syntactic behavior belongs to the lexical entry. It has been
>    previously argued that there should be a link between Frames and Senses...
>    I remain unconvinced as there is a link by means of the arguments, and so I
>    wonder if there is any use case where there needs to a be sense-specific
>    use of a frame without using the arguments?
>    2. A very large number of the triples in the example are used for the
>    "semantic frame" or "semantic predicate"... 19 in fact. Is there any use
>    case, which justifies the use of this modelling, in preference to the less
>    verbose existing model?
>
> In general, the model as defined by *lemon* has been verified in a large
> number of applications, and I have not heard of any use cases that require
> modification of that structure. Can we please see if there are any relevant
> applications not currently satisfied by the syn-sem module as is, rather
> than innovating for innovation's sake!
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Francesca Frontini <
> francescafrontini@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Philip, all,
>> i've looked into the example and there are three main points that should
>> be looked into, from my part:
>>
>> 1) the synsemFrame here is one for sell and buy, as in Philipps first
>> example; following mine and Fahad's alternative example, could one also
>> represent two synsemFrame objects, one for sell and one for buy, linked to
>> the same ontological object? or would that force us to have two ontological
>> events too?
>>
>> 2) the synsemFrame is linked to the lexicalEntry, with (if im not
>> mistaken) no direct or indirect connection to the sense.  This feels a bit
>> wrong to me; when a verb has more than one sense, you want to be able to
>> match correctly; couldn't one make it a property of the sense instead?
>>
>> 3) the thematic roles are on the synbehavior. I think that, especially
>> for intransitive verbs one can think of cases where the subject may have
>> different roles (in one case agent and in the other something else, like
>> Force or Natural Cause, in some inventories). Intuitively, "John_agent
>> destroyed the house_patient" and "The avalanche_cause destroyed the
>> house_patient" have the same synbehavior, but  may correspond to a
>> different sense and a different ontological event, have different
>> selectional preferences and thematic role. How would one deal with this?
>> Generally speaking Thematic Roles are considered at the interface of syntax
>> and semantics rather than a syntactic phenomenon; hypothesis: couldn't they
>> somewhat be linked to the synsem:argBinding?
>>
>> Hope I can be there this afternoon, otherwise i'll read you from the
>> thread.
>>
>> Cheers from Paris,
>> Francesca
>>
>>
>> 2014-09-04 17:04 GMT+02:00 Fahad Khan <anasfkhan81@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Dear Philipp and list,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the example, I will go through it this afternoon.
>>>
>>> Francesca has told me she probably won't be able to make it tomorrow,
>>> but, unexpected circumstances aside, I will be there.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Fahad
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4 September 2014 14:04, Philipp Cimiano <
>>> cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  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> 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>
>>>>> 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> 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>
>>>>>>> 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> 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>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>