- From: Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es>
- Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:59:43 +0200
- 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
- Message-ID: <CANzuSaP60N5yDdtsUyc+0rBe+g_Grav836pSpgHiTwH=Nd0cJw@mail.gmail.com>
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