- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:16:35 +0200
- To: public-ontolex@w3.org
- Message-ID: <5409B7B3.1070707@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Sorry, I am late. I am calling in now. Philipp. Am 05.09.14 14:44, schrieb Francesca Frontini: > 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 > <mailto: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 <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 >> <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 <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
Received on Friday, 5 September 2014 13:17:14 UTC