W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ontolex@w3.org > May 2015

Re: synsem module ready

From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 22:49:24 +0200
Message-ID: <555E44D4.1080406@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
To: public-ontolex@w3.org
Hi John, all,

  working through these comments:

1. The definition of 'other form' still says '[Other form] should be 
.... an abbreviation, short form or acronym'. This is incorrect and 
contradicts the definition of lexical entry. Can we add an example 
clarifying the representation of abbreviations? -> added to the agenda 
for tomorrow

2) Rethink example 10

3) Example 17: is supposed to show how to use denotes and evokes. We 
could change the IATE concept.

4) I agree that the definition of semantic frame could be simplified. I 
like the one you propose below.

5) Exampes 5 and 6: I think they are important to show people how to use 
the model also in more complex cases. I strongly argue to keep them! 
Examples are key to make people adopt the model. Many things are not 
understandable from the descriptions alone...

So I table the above things for the agenda tomorrow...

Regards,

Philipp


Am 20.05.15 um 16:57 schrieb John P. McCrae:
> Hi,
>
> I read through the spec and there are a few major issues I detected in 
> the first couple of sections sections (ontolex + synsem)
>
> 1. The definition of 'other form' still says '[Other form] should be 
> .... an abbreviation, short form or acronym'. This is incorrect and 
> contradicts the definition of lexical entry. Can we add an example 
> clarifying the representation of abbreviations?
> 2. ontolex/example10 now doesn't make any sense... 'bank' is just two 
> words each with a different meaning. Can we change this to a word with 
> genuine polysemy... I suggest 'troll' (1 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll>, 2 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll>).
> 3. ontolex/example17 doesn't really show a lot and for some reason 
> refers to IATE for 'cat'!? (this is probably my fault...). Could we 
> switch it to 'spouse'/'marry' showing that these two lexical entries 
> have two different concepts but the same reference dbpedia:spouse
> 4. The definition of semantic frame is at best confusing, I really 
> don't think we need to bring Gestalt Theory into this as well. My 
> attempt would be:
>
> *Semantic Frames* are the meaning of a word (and hence are also 
> lexical senses) but expressed by one or more ontological predicates 
> and their arguments. This sense of the word can only be understood 
> when all of its required arguments are realized.
>
> Similarly we need to change subframe to
>
> *Subframe *relates a complex semantic frame to frames for each of the 
> individual ontological predicates that form the complex semantic frame.
>
> 5. synsem/example5 and example6 are essentially the same as example4 
> but they connect an eventive verb ('graduate' or 'die') with a 
> consequential fact ('almaMater' or 'deathYear'). This is of 
> questionable soundness although we have argued in papers it is valid 
> when the event and the consequence are in a strict bijection... still, 
> I would prefer to drop this for the spec as it adds a lot of 
> unnecessary complexity.
>
> There are a lot of other minor issues I will change directly in the spec.
>
> Regards,
> John
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Manuel Fiorelli 
> <manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com <mailto:manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Philipp, All
>
>     you can find my comments on the synsem module below.
>
>     In Example synsem/example2, the resource :own_frame_transitive is
>     wrongly written :own_form_transitive. Additionally, there are two
>     usages of owl:subPropertyOf, which instead should be
>     rdfs:subPropertyOf.
>
>     The class synsem:SemanticFrame is declared to be subclass of
>     ontolex:LexicalSense; however, in the picture representing the
>     synsem module, the arrow representing this axiom is oriented in
>     the opposite direction.
>
>     In the paragraph "Semantic Frames", there is a table headed
>     "Type", "Predicate", "Example", whose first row contains
>     /City(x)/, ?x rdf:type ontology:Person: should it be ?x rdf:type
>     dbpedia-owl:City?
>
>     There is no example (just below the definition of synsem:isA)about
>     the representation of unary predicates. Nor is there any example
>     about the representation of individuals.
>
>     The definitions of synsem:{subj|obj}OfProp use the following wording:
>     "...property represents the semantic argument with represents"
>
>     I would avoid a sequence of two "represents". Moreover, I think
>     that "with" should be "that".
>
>     In Example synsem/example3, there is again owl:subPropertyOf.
>
>     Also, In Example synsem/example4, there is again owl:subPropertyOf.
>
>     In the section "Complex Senses / Semantic Frames", there is the
>     definition of synsem:subframe, while in the figure there is the
>     property synsem:subsense.
>
>     Just below Example synsem/example7, there is an example involving
>     the property father: the property should point to the child;
>     however, the name of the property suggests to me that the object
>     is the father (just in the same manner skos:broader points to the
>     broader of a given concept).
>
>     I think that Example synsem/example9  should be explained in more
>     detail.
>
>     I didn't find the definition of synsem:propertyDomain and
>     synsem:propertyRange; then, I realized that they were moved to the
>     core module. The diagram of the core module must be updated to
>     include these properties, as well as the diagram of the synsem
>     module to remove them.
>
>     I noticed that in the infobox providing the definition of
>     propertyRange and propertyDomain, the URI still uses the synsem
>     namespace instead of the core ontolex namespace.
>
>     Finally, I noticed a typo in the definition of ontolex:LexicalEntry:
>     "The class lexical entry represents a unit of analysis of the
>     lexicon that consist of a set of forms that are grammatically ... "
>
>     It should be "that consists" with an append "s".
>
>     Best Regards
>
>     Manuel Fiorelli
>
>
>     2015-05-13 21:47 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano
>     <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>     <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>>:
>
>         Dear all,
>
>          I have been working on finalizing the synsem module, please
>         check:
>
>         https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Final_Model_Specification#Syntax_and_Semantics_.28synsem.29
>
>         The next telco to discuss the synsem module will be on Friday
>         the 22nd of Mai, 16:00 CET.
>
>         Please send me any issues to discuss or comments on the synsem
>         module by Thurday 21st of Mai at the very latest.
>
>         Thanks and best regards,
>
>         Philipp.
>
>         -- 
>         --
>         Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
>         AG Semantic Computing
>         Exzellenzcluster für Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
>         Universität Bielefeld
>
>         Tel: +49 521 106 12249 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249>
>         Fax: +49 521 106 6560 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%206560>
>         Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>         <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
>
>         Office CITEC-2.307
>         Universitätsstr. 21-25
>         33615 Bielefeld, NRW
>         Germany
>
>
>
>

-- 
--
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
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2015 20:49:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:36:49 UTC