Re: Changes in synsem and vartrans

Hi Philipp, all
I won't be able to join today. I'll read the minutes and send you any 
comments on Monday.

Have a nice wekend!
Lupe

El 17/07/2015 a las 13:32, Fahad Khan escribió:
> Hi Philipp, group
>
>>     The general comments, which given that this Friday's is the last
>>     Telco and Philipp wants to freeze the model, are more discussion
>>     points in the case that there is time and willingness:
>>
>>     I think having an OntoMap class is a better solution than having
>>     the two different sets of arguments, semantic and syntactic, if
>>     you're going to be strict about semantics by reference that is
>>     and about having all the semantic information in the ontology
>>     (though personally speaking I don't think you can be too strict
>>     here without making numerous theoretical assumptions about
>>     natural language semantics or pissing off the ontology modelling
>>     guys who're going to want the ontology to be as language
>>     independent as possible, but that's a discussion for another
>>     day...).  That being said, I did notice that in the VerbNet
>>     lemon-encoding, semantic arguments are explicitly mentioned
>>     (using the semArg mapping) -- even if they are identified with
>>     syntactic arguments -- and semantic predicates are subclasses of
>>     Lexical Sense. With the OntoLex model I guess you would expect
>>     semantic predicates to belong to an external ontology or for
>>     users to construct their own, but I don't know if users will
>>     always want to do this (the lemon version of VerbNet being a case
>>     in point).
>>
>     I am not sure about the VerbNet lemon encoding. But the position
>     of ontolex is clear: semantics is in the ontology. What is not in
>     the ontology does not exist.
>     If things exist that can be refered to in natural language, then
>     they should be part of the ontology. If the ontology has
>     limitations then this is not an ontolex problem, but a problem of
>     the ontology...
>
>
> Fair enough.
>
>
>>     Secondly, I don't get why OntoMap necessarily needs to be a
>>     subclass of Lexical Sense. Indeed I think that intuitively
>>     speaking such a syntactic-semantic mapping seems to play a
>>     different role from LexicalSense. Also it may well be the case
>>     that two different senses of a word share the same synsem mapping
>>     (depending on how fine grained your ontology is), e.g., subject
>>     -> Agent, object->Patient; making ontomaps separate senses
>>     muddies the water in this case. Additionally synsem/Example 7
>>     seems to bundle lots of different things together and is
>>     complicated and hard to understand (for me anyway) largely
>>     because :giving_semframe is both mapping the entry to an
>>     extension (the class of giving events) and describing its
>>     (meaning-influenced) syntagmatic behaviour.  I think it would be
>>     easier  (obviously at the cost of concision) at least
>>     conceptually if :give had a sense that pointed to
>>     <http://example.org/giving> and each of the synBehaviours had a
>>     separate OntoMap to the ontology, or even one mapping with
>>     submappings describing its argument structure.
>
>     The LexicalSense implements the lexicon-ontology interface. A
>     sense is a pair of lexical entry and corresponding concept. An
>     OntoMap is a subclass that relates a lexical entry with internal
>     structure (e.g. with arguments) to a structure in the ontology.
>     Thus, it is clearly a subclass of a LexicalSense.
>     Lexical Senses can not share the same mapping because the
>     arguments of a syntactic behaviour are unique for this behaviour,
>     so the mapping to ontological arguments needs to be specified for
>     each syntactic behaviour... so two senses can not share the same
>     mapping...
>
>     I hope this clarifies. Otherwise, we can continue discussing
>     tomorrow. Thanks for your input.
>
> I always understood senses as tying a lexical entry to an extension, 
> but not necessarily matching up one to one with a verb's argument 
> structures. So for a verb like "to eat", there are at least two 
> syntactic behaviours, i.e., transitive and instransitive, as in 'Fahad 
> ate an apple', and 'Fahad ate', and with two different argument 
> structures (or maybe one, with the Object being optional). But both of 
> these sentences use 'eat ' in the same sense. On the other hand it's 
> possible that I can understand  the instance of 'to eat' in "The ATM 
> ate my card" as a different sense of the verb but with an argument 
> structure <Agent, Patient> that matches one of the argument structures 
> of the first sense. IMO it all depends on the theoretical framework 
> you're operating in.
>
>     On example 7: certainly not the most compact one, but I added this
>     example because you challenged us to represent the alternation for
>     X gave Y Z" and "X gave Z to Y
>     I have tried to completely spell out how to do this? What exactly
>     would you propose to remove from the example?
>
>     Kind regards,
>
>     Philipp.
>
>
>
>
> I don't propose to remove anything from the example per se. I still 
> think it's a good example and illustrates the kind of issues you face 
> frequently when working on the representation of verb syntax -- and 
> that it is therefore important to have such an example in the 
> specifications. I was just pointing out that the way of dealing with 
> it using the OntoMap class is a bit hard to follow -- at least for me: 
> it took me a while to get to grips with.
>
> Cheers,
> Fahad
>
>


-- 
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



---
El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus