Re: Next skype call on 24th of October, 14:00 CET

Thanks to Nicoletta for the review!

To add to this, there was a very big debate in the 90s about what a word sense is, and even if there are senses. One seminal paper was Kilgarriff’s “I Don’t believe in Word Senses”. Another of interest could be “Machine Readable Dictionaries: Have We Wasted Our Time?” by myself and Jean Veronis. The latter discusses all the problems we had trying to deal with sense distinctions in different MRDs.

And there is much more—papers by Wilks, Hanks and Atkins, etc. Before treading down the same path it might be worth looking into this.


> On Oct 23, 2017, at 9:18 AM, Nicoletta Calzolari <glottolo@ilc.cnr.it> wrote:
> 
> Hi all, 
> 
> I just want to tell you that I saw with interest this new task inside Ontolex. 
> Also because, and you certainly don't know because it was too much time ago, this reminds me of the very first action that we did inside the old EC ESPRIT ACQUILEX project (late '80-beg.'90). 
> For the purpose of acquiring info from so-called Machine Readable Dictionaries (which at the time was a completely innovative thing!), we thought that the first action should have been, as you do now, the analysis of the entries of a number of MRDs. We did a rather detailed analysis/comparison that went into a Technical Report for Acquilex. 
> A similar analysis was also done a bit later within the TEI, if I remember well, for the standardization work on MRDs there. 
> All this, only years later, was then taken over inside the EAGLES and then ISLE EC projects. 
> 
> I thought it could be interesting for the youngest to know ...
> 
> Ciao
> Nicoletta
> 
> 
> On 23/10/2017 12:56, John McCrae wrote:
>> HI all,
>> 
>> I suggested another version that follows the existing specification https://www.w3.org/2016/05/ontolex/ <https://www.w3.org/2016/05/ontolex/>
>> 
>> We wrote that 
>> 
>> "A lexical sense represents the lexical meaning of a lexical entry when interpreted as referring to the corresponding ontology element" 
>> 
>> And in contrast 
>> 
>> "we would like to express the fact that a certain lexical entry evokes a certain mental concept rather than that it refers to a class with a formal interpretation in some model. Thus, in lemon we introduce the class Lexical Concept"
>> 
>> Thus, in my interpretation, senses in traditional dictionaries should always be modeled as lexical concepts.
>> 
>> Lexical sense has always been quite a technical concept, and honestly I think calling it 'lexical sense' has created much confusion (way back in the first Lemon model I had proposed to call it a sememe). I think we need to make a clear and unambiguous definition of lexical sense, that precludes its usage without an ontological reference, as this is how it is defined both in the final specification and in the OWL code (reference exactly 1).
>> 
>> I have created a flowchart (for discussion, attached) to try and explain (IMHO) the differences between senses, concepts and references.
>> 
>> I also noted that there is no need to define a new example object if it only has an rdf:value, in this case using a single skos:example triple is both more compact and inter-operable.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> John
>> 
>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Julia Bosque Gil <jbosque@fi.upm.es <mailto:jbosque@fi.upm.es>> wrote:
>> Hi, Philipp, all: 
>> 
>> We have a first draft of the RDF for Francesca's PLI verre, mousse, and estomaquer examples in the shared document <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TogPjrLyJS0OK5pzww28751MX7179-NzCIsDdzae65o/edit>. Francesca, Fahad and I were working on it the other day, but some things are still unclear to us (marked in red color and with comments on the margin). 
>> 
>> Summary:
>> 
>> - Lexical definitions are included at the LexicalSense level and the encyclopedic one at the LexicalConcept level (I seem to remember this was suggested during our last telco)
>> - The decomp module is used to relate maison de verre, petite verre, etc. to verre. 
>> - At the end of the RDF you'll see how option 3' (from the ones we discussed in September), with DictionaryEntries and DictionaryEntryComponents, could be applied here if we wanted to record that both the lexical entry verre as well as maison de verre, petite verre, etc. belong to the same dictionary entry, and the latter are not considered dictionary entries themselves in the PLI. 
>> 
>> Best regards, 
>> 
>> Julia
>> 
>> 
>> 2017-10-22 18:08 GMT+02:00 Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>>:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>>  we agreed to have our next regular ontolex skype call next Tuesday,
>> 24th of October at 14:00 CET.
>> 
>> We will do the call by skype.
>> 
>> I will not be available as I am currently attending the ISWC conference
>> in Vienna, but John agreed to lead the teleconference.
>> 
>> The main outcome could be to provide a proposal for how to model the
>> Petit Larousse examples provided by Francesca during the teleconference
>> last week.
>> 
>> Did anyone manage to have a look and try to provide some RDF code that
>> can be discussed during the telco next Tuesday?
>> 
>> I have cleaned up a little bit the minutes from the last skype call:
>> 
>> https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2017.10.10,_15-16_pm_CET <https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Teleconference,_2017.10.10,_15-16_pm_CET>
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>>  
>> Julia Bosque Gil
>> PhD Student
>> Ontology Engineering Group <http://www.oeg-upm.net/>
>> Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
>> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
>> 
>