Re: Reminder, telco today on decomposition module

Dear Philipp,

please see my answers below.

2015-06-22 22:34 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
:

>
> Am 09.06.15 um 14:56 schrieb Manuel Fiorelli:
>
>
> In the diagram, the association named "subframe" should be applied to
> SemanticFrame rather than to sense. The same holds true for the property
> condition.
>
>
> You are right for "subframe", but not for "condition", which is defined
> for LexicalSense as domain.
>

Maybe I was confused by the fact that in the ontology file the
property condition
has domain  SemanticFrame (
https://github.com/cimiano/ontolex/blob/master/Ontologies/synsem.owl#L68).
I think that this axiom should thus be removed from the ontology file.


> -----
>
>
> Concerning Example synsem/example3, I would make it explicit the fact that
> the binding between the syntactic and semantic arguments is realized by
> unifying them.
>
>
> I added the following sentence below example 3:
>
> The above example clearly shows how syntactic and semantic arguments are
> bound in ontolex, that is by instantiating the syntactic and corresponding
> semantic argument with the same individual. This is mainly done for reasons
> of economy. Essentially, by this we avoid having to introduce a dedicated
> SynsemCorrespondence class as used in LMF to implement this binding.
>

I think that this helps.

>
> ------
>
>
> In Example synsem/example7, you use rdfs:subProperty, while the correct
> one is rdfs:subPropertyOf.
>
> the the semantic argument giving_event seems unbound. Is this a case in
> which we should use the property isA?
>
> ----
>
> No not really, as the giving_event is not realized syntactically...
>
>
Thank you for the clarification.

>
> I would expand the description of Example synsem/example8, to indicate the
> function of synsem:isA. Also, if I am right on the previous point, I
> think that there is a slight difference between the use of isA in this
> example and its use in example 7.
>
>    I added the following sentence:
>
> Note that in the above example the property synsem:isA property is used to
> mark the single argument/variable of the class of all the things that have
> female gender. The copulative subject in an expression such as "Mary is
> female" is bound to this single semantic argument. The semantics is thus in
> essence the characteristic function that for each element x decides if x is
> in the set denoted by the class.
>

> Does this help?
>
>
I think that this helps. However, I just spotted a typo: you repeated the
word "property" before and after the expression synsem:isA.


>   ----
>
>  In the wiki you use "*X ∈ ∃inverse father.Thing"*. Although it is
> probably a bad name, I would write a perhaps clearer "*X ∈ ∃
> fatherOf.Thing*". However, I am not sure.
>
>
> In principle yes, but we use the property "father" in example 4. For the
> sake of consistency I would stick to inverse father.
>

You convinced me.

>
> ----
>
>  Do we want to add an example for symsem:isA? Maybe we can expand the
> example in the table:
>
> Class Unary predicate City(x), ?x rdf:type dbpedia-owl:City
>
> ---
>
> Sure, any concrete proposal?
>
>
Not sure if this is concrete enough. But my idea was to insert an
additional example for a class noun (specifically the class
dbpedia-owl:City) following the Class Noun pattern (
https://github.com/jmccrae/lemon.patterns#class-nouns).

>
>  If we want to represent an event verb, we can take the example from the
> BIO ontology:
> http://vocab.org/bio/0.1/.html#Graduation
>
>
> Good idea. I will think about it. Thanks
>



-- 
Manuel Fiorelli