- From: Guadalupe Aguado de Cea <guadalupe.aguado@upm.es>
- Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 15:46:10 +0200
- To: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, public-ontolex@w3.org
- Message-ID: <540DB322.1040409@upm.es>
Hi, all After the teleconference last Friday I kept on thinking on other possible examples to illustrate the synsem frame and the thematic roles implied in each. Although Example 11, sent by Phillip is quite clear, I think, I suggest two possible ones that have different thematic roles participating according to the senses in Framenet: preserving and removing, and their linguistic realizations. Just food for thought !!! "See" you next Friday. Best regards Lupe verbs El 05/09/2014 22:48, Philipp Cimiano escribió: > Hi Francesca, all, > > we discussed these points during the telco today. See my comments > below... > > Have a good weekend, > > Philipp. > > Am 05.09.14 14:03, schrieb Francesca Frontini: >> 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? > > Yes, of course, there is some absolute flexibility here. One can use > two different frames for sell and buy, referring to two different > concepts or two frames pointing to one concept or one frame. >> >> 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? > Well, for sure there should be a link from the frame to the sense. > >> >> 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? > This is a good question indeed. The main issue is whether you assume > that the two uses of destroy you cite above correspond to one Frame or > not. > In any case, we discussed during the telco today that in LMF they > would be modelled as two different PredicativeRepresentations. In this > case, using the mechnisms to reifiy argument bindings > (synSemCorrespondence and synSemArgMapping) one can assign different > thematic roles to the subject position. > > In any case, I have attached a new example (example11.ttl) that shows > how to capture your example using the standard mechanisms in > ontolex.owl and synsem.owl (without frames as used in my recent > examples). Maybe we can start from there to analyze if you see any > shortcomings in the modeling. > > One coneptual drawback I see is that to capture the different frames, > two different sense object would be needed in order to capture that in > one sense the subject expresses the destroyer while in the other case > the subject expresses the cause of destroyment. > > Note that in my example I have attached the thematic role to the > subsense which in some sense realizes the synsem arg mapping for a > particular frame element of a frame so to speak. > > I hope that this makes sense to you. > > However, it is certainly questionable that two senses (with four > subsenses) are needed, while both uses of "destroy" seem to correspond > to the same sense, I agree. This might indeed call for introducing > something like a SemanticPredicate that is related to the sense. In > the case above we could thus have one sense but two semantic predicates. > >> >> 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 -- Guadalupe Aguado de Cea Departamento de Lingüística Aplicada Miembro del Ontology Engineering Group -OEG Facultad de Informática Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Campus de Montegancedo, sn 28660, Boadilla del Monte, Spain Home page: www.oeg-upm.net e-mail: guadalupe.aguado@upm.es Telef.: 34-91-3367415
Received on Monday, 8 September 2014 13:46:57 UTC