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 15:24:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CANzuSaM7xuqKqgbu9DmoLB0HeELg=9Rj7WVkLs0krXv=xUV+0g@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" <public-ontolex@w3.org>
Hi again,

I forgot to mention, in the PLI document I added a third solution that
somehow mixes Julia's and John's ones:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TogPjrLyJS0OK5pzww28751MX7179-NzCIsDdzae65o/edit#bookmark=id.j20vbv5k267m
In short, the idea is to create lexical senses that support the different
dictionary senses, which would point to an external reference
(skos:Concept) containing the encyclopaedic knowledge (just an idea, to be
discussed during the next telco).

Best,
Jorge


2017-10-24 8:59 GMT+02:00 Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es>:

> 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/
>



-- 
Jorge Gracia, PhD
Ontology Engineering Group
Artificial Intelligence Department
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
http://jogracia.url.ph/web/
Received on Tuesday, 24 October 2017 13:24:54 UTC

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