- From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:55:19 +0200
- To: public-ontolex@w3.org
- Message-ID: <54114757.8040408@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Lupe, all, thanks for this email. Can you elaborate a bit on what you mean below? What is the concrete proposal? @All: we will e-meet this Friday for our weekly ontolex telco. I will send out access details and an agenda today. Regards, Philipp Am 08.09.14 15:46, schrieb Guadalupe Aguado de Cea: > 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 -- -- 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 Thursday, 11 September 2014 06:55:51 UTC