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