Re: A final set of issues with the specification

Hi John,

    thanks for the summary of open issues. I comment on them...

Am 24.07.15 um 13:37 schrieb John P. McCrae:
> Hi all,
>
> I made a thorough read-through of the specification and have some 
> comments. There are five points that may be controversial and another 
> /few/ that should not be.
>
> *Important points*
>
> 1. We do not given the abbreviation of "lexicon model for ontologies" 
> as "lemon" although the term lemon is used at several points in the 
> document. Do we agree that the model is called "lexicon model for 
> ontologies" and abbreviated as "OntoLex-Lemon"?
Indeed, I propose we use the acronym lemon in the document, but in the 
introduction we should have the long name. I have fixed this already.

>
> 2. ontolex/example12 is very difficult to understand now that we have 
> named this property "context" and not "usage". The idea that "riviere" 
> can be extended with a usage note "A riviere is a river that flows 
> into the sea" makes sense but it is not clear why the usage note is 
> called a "context"... we need to either clearly justify this or rename 
> the property to "usage". I prefer the latter option. (see also point 28)

True, I propose to move this example down where we discuss the usage 
property.
>
> 3. The vartrans:category "property indicates the specific type of a 
> relation", we already have a property to do this namely rdf:type! It 
> is not clear to me from the text why we need to redefine this 
> property. (i.e., either we need to better justify this or drop this 
> property)
No clear opinion about this yet.

>
> 4. Lime defines a number of properties that are of the form "the 
> number of links from X to Y divided by the total number of X" for 
> example lime:avgNumOfLexicalizations is "the number of links from 
> references to lexical entries divided by the total number of 
> references". This can be put into a table as follows:
>
> X/Y  References  Entries  Concepts
> References  -  |avgNumOfLexicalizations|  |avgNumOfLinks|
> Entries  |percentage|  -  |avgAmbiguity|
> Concepts  ?  |avgSynonymy|  -
>
>
> The table reveals a few inconsistencies in that we have a missing 
> property and the percentage property should perhaps be named something 
> like avgPolysemy
>
> 5. As the NIF "community" has not responded to our questions, we are 
> forced to drop recommendations of linking using NIF, and instead only 
> recommend OpenAnnotation.

Not sure yet.
>
> *Not-so-important points*
>
> (JPM) means I will try and fix them within the next two weeks
>
> 6. "Document is structured into eight sections" only there are nine (JPM)

Yes.
>
> 7. The first paragraph of the introduction is very academic, perhaps 
> it could be rewritten to be more appealing to a general audience. (JPM)

I am not sure about the "academic", but I am ok if you work on it.
>
> 8. "sublcass" and a number of other basic spelling errors exist 
> throughout the document. We must spell-check the document! (JPM)

Yes. I spotted some of those already today while doing a first pass over 
the document.
>
> 9. ontolex/example4 uses "/" around the IPA representations of the 
> terms. I don't think that this is necessary. We should also explain 
> the language tag and reference the IANA subtag catalogue.

OK, can you please look into this.
>
> 10. There is little consistency about whether we write "lexical entry" 
> or "LexicalEntry" or use a fixed-width font. (JPM I prefer the real 
> English 'lexical entry')
>
Yes, we should use small case here, that is 'lexical entry'.

> 11. Similarly we should check that terms like "rdfs:label" are always 
> fixed-width (JPM)
>
ok

> 12. "with canonical form the noun" !? (JPM)
>
fixed

> 13. ontolex/example6 seems to duplicate ontolex/example1

Not really. Becasue in example1 we did not have the writtenRep etc. So 
this example is incremental. I think it is fine.
>
> 14. We need an example showing how we represent abbreviations relative 
> to their full forms (JPM)

True, can you add one example...
>
> 15. In the definition of "other form" we should probably not say 
> "non-dictionary" but "non-lemma". (JPM)

Yes, agreed.
>
> 16. ontolex/example10 is still not good. The "bank" part of the 
> example makes no sense as it is two separate entries with separate 
> meanings, but it is not well explained why "bank" is two entries. The 
> second part of this example uses the word "apothecary", which is a 
> highly unusual word in English and I would not (personally) say is 
> truly synonymous with "pharmacist". I had suggested using "troll" as 
> the example here, but that seems not to have been adopted. Perhaps we 
> also need a separate example explaining "bank" here too? (JPM)
I think the example is fine. Why does "bank" make no sense? The example 
gives guidance to people about how to model multiple meanings of a word.
The case of bank shows the case where there are two different entries 
for the word and both the lexical entries and the meanings are unrelated.
The case of "apothecary" is the other case in which there is one lexical 
entry with two meanings.

I am fine though if we replace the "apothecary" example by the "troll 
example".

It seems that both meanings are indeed in DBpedia:

http://de.dbpedia.org/page/Troll_(Mythologie)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Netzkultur)
Ok then.
> 17. ontolex/example12 is listed in the text as synsem/example12! (JPM)

ok.
>
> 18. Terms like 'Lexicon' and 'Lexical Entry' should not be capitalized 
> they are not proper nouns (JPM)

Yes.
>
> 19. The lexical concept can be better explained as follows: The 
> reference in the ontology primarily gives an interpretation of a word 
> in terms of the identifiers that would be generated by the semantic 
> parsing of the sentence. For example if we were to understand the 
> query "when did John Lennon die?" we may understand the word "die" as 
> generating the URI dbpedia:deathDate within a SPARQL query. In 
> contrast many resources will also wish to record the intentional 
> meaning of the word with the mental lexicon, such as "die" referring 
> to the concept of death, for this reason we introduce the class 
> lexical concept which can be evoked by a lexical entry in place of or 
> as well as a denotation in the ontology, e.g.,
>
>    :die a ontolex:Word ;
>      ontolex:denotes dbpedia:deathDate ;
>      ontolex:evokes  wordnet:Dying .
> (JPM)

OK, but I would add this in addition to the explanation we have as an 
elaboration. I like the way you have phrased this.
>
> 20. Capitalization in definition of OntoMap is wrong. (JPM)

Why is it wrong?
>
> 21. I don't like the paragraph 'An OntoMap resembles the 
> SynSemCorrespondence...' as
> The OntoMap does not really resemble synsemcorrespondence
> I don't think we should compare to a closed standard like LMF that is 
> unfamiliar to most of our audience
> Talking about semantic arguments will only create more confusion

Well, this is a major issue that I will bring up soon. I indeed see the 
OntoMap as the ontolex counterpart to the SynSemCorrespondence. In fact, 
I will argue not to regard OntoMap as a subclass of Lexical Sense. But 
let us not open this box today... ;-)
>
> 22. All "dbpedia:" URIs should be fixed width (JPM)

This point is not clear to me, sorry.
>
> 23. Some examples use "dbonto" and some "dbpedia"... inconsistent. (JPM)

Well, there are different namespaces in DBpedia as well. Should we be 
more consistent that DBpedia? We could try to stick to the ontology 
namespace however...
>
> 24. "The verb (to) launch" needs quotation marks (JPM)

OK
>
> 25. "Complex ontology mappings / submappings" talks about semantic 
> arguments but this is confusing

Not sure why this is confusing. I still see the subject and object 
position of a triple as arguments of the triple. Maybe the term 
"semantic" is confusing here?
>
> 26. Indentation of synsem/example8 needs to be fixed (JPM)

OK
>
> 27. "If element x decides if x"... this is not a maths paper, use 
> English. (JPM)
This comes from me. I though this makes it clear that with isA we refer 
to the lambda-abstracted variable of a lambda expression or to the 
argument of a function that characterizes the set. I find this quite 
clear and think that it is understandable as such. But we can add an 
English sentence that clarifies this a bit.

>
> 28. condition is defined as a subproperty of usage (JPM, see point 2)
>
> 29. "not found in many other languages" => "not found in some other 
> languages and more importantly in some ontologies" (JPM)

ok
>
> 30. I am not sure from a linguistic point of view that it is correct 
> to say that "otitis" is composed of the affix "itis" in 
> decomp/example3. In particular there is no Spanish word "ot" and 
> "-itis" is a Greek inflection not a true suffix. An easier example 
> would be with a normal prefix such as "un-", "re-" or "dis-"...
Well, it is. It is clearer if we use the term "apendicitis" In which 
"itis" again means inflammation. "apendic" stands for appendix. Is that 
better?

>
> 31. It appears that order information has been added to 
> decomp/example6... this is not necessary if we know that order of the 
> words from the main entry and this representation actually saves a 
> triple (ergo IMHO is superior!)
>
>     :AfricanSwineFever a ontolex:MultiwordExpression ;
>       rdf:_1 African_node ;
>       rdf:_2 Swine_node ;
>       rdf:_3 Fever_node .

It does not hurt to add this information. Because the order is only 
implicit in the lexical entry. One would need to tokenize the lexical 
entry to get the order... Saving triples is not always good if one 
looses information that needs to be recovered...
>
> 32. "adjective -> adverb variation" not sure what "minus greater than" 
> means here. (JPM change to arrow)
>
> 33. "Translation" section lists the "following ways [of representing 
> translation] of increasing ontological strength"... but they are 
> clearly not increasing! I am not really sure what ontological strength 
> means.

This comes from me. I will revise it.
>
> 34. The diagram for lime metadata needs to be updated. (JPM)
>
> 35. lime/example2 "jnp" => "jpn" (JPM)
>
> 36. I have a comment on "Verb form mood" that appears to never have 
> been answered. I assume that my merge has no objections. (JPM)
>
> Regards,
> John

-- 
--
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