W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ontolex@w3.org > October 2017

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

From: Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:59:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CANzuSaP60N5yDdtsUyc+0rBe+g_Grav836pSpgHiTwH=Nd0cJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: john <john@mccr.ae>
Cc: Julia Bosque Gil <jbosque@fi.upm.es>, Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, public-ontolex@w3.org
Hi John, all,

Thanks for your comments. Let me share my view on this, for later
discussion in today's telco

> Thus, in my interpretation, senses in traditional dictionaries should
always be modeled as lexical concepts.

I think that there are still good reasons to model "dictionary senses" as
"lexical senses" in some cases (as people have been done in previous lemon,
btw). In particular, according to the ontolex specification, translations
(and other types of sense relations) are established between lexical senses
but not between lexical concepts. Therefore, bilingual/multilingual
dictionaries need the creation of lexical senses if we want to represent
translations explicitly. In such cases, creating a "lexical concept"
counterpart for the needed lexical senses might result in overloading the
modelling unnecessarily.

> 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).

Although I understand this point, relaxing this restriction, as we did in
the RDF generation of the Apertium family of bilingual dictionaries, proved
to be very useful: in short, to represent translations we created
"artificial" lexical senses (associated to their corresponding lexical
entries in different languages, and defining translations between them) to
support the fact that translations were established not between words but
between word meanings, leaving such lexical senses not linked to external
references initially. Then, as a later step, we were able to connect some
of these "orphan" lexical senses to BabelSynsets, while other senses remain
unconnected. This might be not 100% compliant with the ontolex definition
but is a natural pattern that emerges when you model "botton-up" from
lexicon to ontology, and gives you the flexibility of connecting senses
among them (e.g., via translations) or to external references when
available (e.g., BabelNet) even if the reference is not known beforehand.

In fact, the idea of "precluding the usage of lexical sense without an
ontological reference" corresponds to a purely top-down vision, that is,
lexical senses can be used only when you "know" the ontology and can go
from the ontology to the lexicon. This vision obliges you to use lexical
concepts instead in the reverse way (from lexicon to ontology). In my view,
however, the modelling mechanism should be the same no matter you go
bottom-up or top-down, and the "lexical entry" <-> "lexical sense" <->
"reference" path covers both perfectly.

Maybe I did not get it right, but I understood that LexicalConcept was
introduced in the last ontolex version to cover structures such as
WordNet-like synsets (i.e., groups of words that share a common definition
and underlying meaning), which might be suitable for some dictionaries but
not for all of them. In other cases (specially to support translations)
LexicalSenses  could  be enough.

Best regards,

Jorge





2017-10-23 12:56 GMT+02:00 John McCrae <john@mccr.ae>:

>

> HI all,
>
> I suggested another version that follows the existing specification
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>
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>:

>>>

>>> 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
>>> Fax: +49 521 106 6560
>>> Mail: 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
>
>

-- 
Jorge Gracia, PhD
Ontology Engineering Group
Artificial Intelligence Department
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
http://jogracia.url.ph/web/
Received on Tuesday, 24 October 2017 07:00:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:36:59 UTC