Re: metadata (and not only): a few discussion points

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Armando Stellato <stellato@info.uniroma2.it>
wrote:

> Hi John,
>
>
>
> thanks for the answer. We try to give some statements there, as we still
> feel there is need for neat axioms/constraints (or just…have things clear
> in our minds :D ).
>
>
>
> To avoid any confusion in reading the following cases: we make a
> fundamental assumption in our view:
>
>
>
> 1.       The set of synsets in wordnet **is not** considered as an
> ontology in the ontology-lexicon dualism. It is rather the semantic
> backbone of a Lexicon.
>
Yes, I agree

> 2.       We suggested thus to call (the whole, not just its synsets)
> WordNet a ConceptualizedLexicon
>
>
>
> *1.*       *Model and Terminology Consistency*
>
> We report here a few statements/idiosyncrasies that have been made/noticed
> in the context of our calls. We would suggest to verify them all together
> and then report them explicitly somewhere, to make things clear from the
> start.
>
>
>
> *a.*      *a Lexicon contains only lexical information (no conceptual
> information, such as synsets)*
>
> are we fine with this? In some cases, WordNet (as a whole), which is
> mostly known as a “lexical database” (correct though maybe too general),
> has been called also a Lexicon (computational Lexicon). We know the
> literature can often explode even with terminology misuses, so it’s ok if
> we decide to keep the above statement in a strict way. Just checking
> confirmation (this influences other choices). Also it’s important to take
> in consideration all the modules and where their information belong to
> (semantic / lexicon part).
>
> This follows from the separation of the semantic and lexical layers that
> we take as the basis of the group... that is we have the ontology
> describing the semantics and the lexicon describing the expression of the
> idea in the words of some language. Of course, the *Lexicon* is not
> actually without semantics due to the *LexicalSense *object, although there
> is no definition that says that the LexicalSense belongs to the ontology
> and lexicon*. *Instead the lexicon is an *organization or the
> ontology-lexicon by entries*.
>
>
>
> *[Armando Stellato] *
>
> Ok, we get back to the scenarios we all agreed:
>
> There can be lexicons not thought in advance specifically for an ontology.
> They exist just because…they exist :-)
>
> If then someone publishes a lexicalization for a given ontology which
> exploits their lexical content, is this part of the lexicon? We think we
> agreed this is called Lexicalization and it is disjoint from the Lexicon.
> Is this right? Because it clashes with the definition you gave above.
>

>
> Follow-up question (in case what we wrote is correct): in case I want to
> publish a lexicon for an ontology: is the whole to be considered a dataset
> which contains a lexicon and a lexicalization, thus:
>
>
>
> (
>
> under the axioms that:
>
> ontolex:Lexicon
> rdfs:subClassOf                               void:Dataset
>
> )
>
>
>
> Is it:
>
>
>
> :myDS                                  a
> void:Dataset                     .
>
> :myDS                                   void:subset
> :myLexicon                        .
>
> :myDS                                   void:subset
> :myLexicalization             .
>
>
>
> Or:
>
>
>
> :myLexicon                        a
> ontolex:Lexicon                               .
>
> :myLexicon                        void:subset
> :myLexicalization             .
>
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
> We vote for the first one, and everything we all already said seems to go
> into that direction. In any case, these formal examples may help to
> converge.
>
Yes, the lexicon should not be a subset of the lexicalization; the
lexicalization, the ontology, the conceptualization and the ontology are
parts of an ontology-lexicon

>
>
>
>
> *b.*
> *Lexical/Lexicalized (and then Conceptual/Conceptualized), not only
> terminology…*During the first year, I (Armando) suggested to introduce a
> superclass for synset-like things, and suggested to use the name
> LexicalConcept (used by Miller himself in describing synsets) to represent
> a common semantic entity for synonymic lexical entries. It is important
> that we recall a cause/effect distinction. A LexicalConcept is not a domain
> concept which is being lexicalized (it would be a “lexicalizED concept”),
> but an entity which exists as a semantic complementary element in the
> description of a lexicon (whether it is technically part of it or not, see
> point (a) above). So it is lexical in that is “has to do” with lexical
> descriptions. A few consequences:
>
>                                                                *i.*
> *ConceptualLexicon*
>
> This was the name reported in the minutes to represent Lexicons which have
> a conceptual backbone (like synsets in wordnet): actually we suggested:
> *ConceptualizedLexicon*. This sounds not as an oxymoron (agree with John
> that ConceptualLexicon does..), and actually tell more about something
> which is still (purely) a Lexicon. To confirm after vote on (a) if the
> conceptual backbone is part of the Lexicon or not (and so technically to
> which dataset the “evokes” triples belong).
>
> This could actually be worth including, but I believe when this was most
> recently discussed it was noted that the *skos:ConceptScheme* is
> functionally the same as a *ConceptLexicon* and I would rather not
> duplicate this mechanism, but we should include an example in the spec
> using *ConceptScheme*.
>
>
>
> * [Armando Stellato] *
>
> See point 2 of our assumption at the start of the email. We were
> addressing WordNet (as a whole) as being a ConceptualizedLexicon (thus
> clarifying that there is a semantic backbone), and this whole cannot be
> replaced with skos:ConceptScheme (though yes, a skos:ConceptScheme could be
> used to group the synsets).
>
> To be totally symmetric with the Lexicon-LexicalizationSet-Ontology, we
> should devise also a:
>
>
>
> ConceptualizedLexicon-Conceptualization-LexicalConceptSet
>
>
>
> However, a LexicalConceptSet (the set of all synsets in WordNet) makes no
> sense per se (unless it has to be shared among different resources which is
> unlikely for synsets exactly for their objective of conceptualizing a
> specific Lexicon), so we could just drop it and consider it part of a
> conceptualization.
>
Actually there are lots of resources that reuse only the synsets from
Princeton WordNet and add words (entries) in another language.

>
>
> Finally, if we have no strict need to represent them separately, we could
> consider actually the whole triad as part of a single dataset, and thus
> consider everything a ConceptualizedLexicon and report in it all the
> related properties (e.g. number of LexicalConcepts, avg polysemy etc..),
> thus simplifying things a lot.
>
>
>
> However, we still need at least one element, note in fact that
> skos:ConceptScheme is not a metadata element, so while it can be ok to
> group all synsets under a skos:ConceptScheme, still there would be no
> metadata class to address them.
>
As I said we could add a subclass of concept scheme with appropriate
metadata properties.

>
>
> ii.
> *Use of properties evokes/denotes*We have got the impression during last
> calls, that ontolex:evokes has been intended to be used whenever a
> skos:Concept is being described.
>
> Yes, evokes is used for conceptual interpretations of words rather than
> formal interpretations
>
>
>
>
>
> *[Armando Stellato] *
>
> Ok, but a skos:Concept is not ontolex:LexicalConcept…what is the
> difference then? (see expansion in the answer to the following point)
>
ontolex:LexicalConcept is a subclass of skos:Concept. The difference is
primarily just that the ontolex class is used in a conceptualized lexicon.

>
>
> Actually it is important that domain skos:Concepts in KOSs which are
> lexicalized through an ontolex:Lexicon fall in the same category as
> owl:Classes or properties...so to be linked through the ontolex:denotes
> property.
>
> The compromise that was reached (I don't like this BTW) is that *denotes*
> can also refer to *LexicalConcepts*
>
>
>
>
>
> * [Armando Stellato] *
>
> mmm…that is ever worse than expected :-) we really don’t need to have
> denotes for LexicalConcepts and on the contrary, we are trying to separate
> them from the rest. Sorry we missed this compromises otherwise we would
> have said something in advance :-)
>
> Ok, let’s forget for a moment about the terminology (thus considering what
> objects the names denotes/evokes are more appropriate for). If (and only
> if) we think that there is some important distinction to make between
> LexicalConcept (e.g. synsets which, once more, exist only to qualify the
> meaning of entries in a wordnet and are not ontologies per se) and
> skos:Concepts in general (e.g. in a lightweight domain model), then there
> could be a distinction in the adopted properties, such as (again, whatever
> the names…):
>
>
>
> -          denotes for skos:Concepts (when used in domain
> conceptualizations), owl:Classes, owl properties and all the funny company…
>
> -          evokes **only** for ontolex:LexicalConcepts
>
>
>
> if that is the case (and the names of the properties could be changed)
> then ok. Otherwise, we should discuss what are the advantages in keeping
> two properties for separating skos:Concepts (including LexicalConcepts)
> from the rest.
>

Sorry, I made a mistake here, denotes refers to SKOS concepts or OWL
entities, and evokes to LexicalConcepts (and thus also SKOS Concepts due to
the subproperty axiom).

Regards,
John

>
>
> Sorry there were other points, we will address them in a further email
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Armando and Manuel
>
>
>
>