Re: A final set of issues with the specification

Hi John, All

I am writing again to the mailing list, in order to correct some errors in
my last reply.

Please read below.

2015-07-24 17:24 GMT+02:00 Manuel Fiorelli <manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com>:


>
> 2015-07-24 13:37 GMT+02:00 John P. McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
> >:
>
>
>> 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/YReferencesEntriesConceptsReferences-avgNumOfLexicalizations
>> avgNumOfLinksEntriespercentage-avgAmbiguityConcepts?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
>>
>
> The various statistics have been defined considering that we have two sets
> *A* and *B* and a set *Pairs* of pairs (a,b) ∈ AxB.
>
> We have various integer counts for:
>
>    - the total number of pairs = |Pair|
>    - the a's that occur in at least one pair = |{a ∈ A | ∃ b ∈ B . (a,b)
>    ∈ Pairs)}|
>    - the b's that occur in at least one pair = |{b ∈ B | ∃ a ∈ A . (a,b)
>    ∈ Pairs)}|
>
> (I used the symbol "|" to express the cardinality of each set, while in
> the spec we sometimes use the fragment #)
>
> For the "ratios", we have chosen a "preferential direction" (maybe this
> not the right expression, or even the directions might be expressed in the
> opposite manner), say from A to B:
>
>    - from the Ontology to the Lexicon in the case of a LexicalizationSet
>    - from the Ontology to the ConceptSet in the case of a LexicalLinkset
>    - from the Lexicon to the ConceptSet in the case of a
>    ConceptualizationSet
>
> Given these viewpoints, we gave the following ratios:
>
>    - percentage = ratio of elements in A that participate in at least one
>    pair (in other words, that have been associated with at least one b in B)
>    - avgNumOfXXX = average number of b in B associated with each a in A
>    (XXX is Lexicalizations, Links, Conceptualizations)
>
> For the ConceptualizationSet we followed a slightly different approach:
>
>    - dropped percentage;
>    - renamed avgNumOfConceptualizations into avgAmbiguity
>    - and added,  avgSynonymy, which plays the role of avgNumOfXXX if we
>    assume the opposite point of view (i.e. counting how many lexical entries
>    are associated with each lexical concept)
>
> With respect to the passage above, I want to clarify that it was not meant
to be a precise report of the long discussions that led to the
specification in its current form, but  a summary on my personal
understanding of this part of the specification with some simplifications.

The problem with the introduction of avgNumOfXXX in the opposite direction
> is that the current properties avgNumOfLexicalizations and avgNumOfLinks are
> in fact ambiguous and their interpretation has been arbitrarily fixed by
> assuming at the denominator the ontology entities.
>

Actually, it is not the case that these properties are ambiguous. What I
was referring to is that at least in principle one can divide the number of
lexicalizations either by the number of ontology entities or by the number
of lexical entries. However, given the fact that ontology elements are
lexicalized by means of lexical entries, it is quite natural (at least to
me) to choice the first interpretation for avgNumOfLexicalizations.


> Therefore, I suspect that the introduction of the missing properties would
> force us to change the names of the already existing ones: it is not a
> case, to me, that in end for the conceptualization set we decided to use avgPolisemy
> and avgSynonymy, dropping avgConceptualizations altogether.
>

Here, I wrote avgPolysemy instead of avgAmbiguity and avgConceptualizations
instead of avgNumfOConceptualizations. Moreover, I compacted the discourse
too much.

If I remember correctly, at a certain point, we had
avgNumOfConceptualizations and avgSynonymy. At least in principle, it is
thus possible to maintain avgNumOfXXX and introduce the property for the
opposite direction. However, I think that in end we felt it was natural to
choose avgAmbuguity as a companion for avgSynonymy.


>
> I really like avgPolisemy and avgSynonymy, which could be applied as well
> to LexicalizationSets, but I think they cannot be applied to
> LexicalLinkset (or at least, their interpretation could not be immediately
> clear, because we are relating two "semantic resources")
>

Again... I confused polysemy and ambiguity :-D


Best regards,

Manuel Fiorelli