- From: Shoaib M. Chaudhary <muhemmed.shoaib@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 23:05:06 +0900
- To: John McCrae <john@mccr.ae>
- Cc: Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es>, Julia Bosque Gil <jbosque@fi.upm.es>, Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, public-ontolex <public-ontolex@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CALsBD2o_TVLZXQHLsBuuG+NsfWAYvgSiU8vetacnWTVn+AaiuA@mail.gmail.com>
Dear All, I am interested in joining Skype Meeting. Can I please get the instructions? Kind Regards Shoaib On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:56 PM, John McCrae <john@mccr.ae> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es> wrote: > >> 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. >> > Yes, actually if you follow my chart, in the case of a bilingual > dictionary[1] lexical senses would be the correct answer. > > Is there are definition? No (or at least not consistently so, as many > entries in bilingual dictionaries have no definitions) > Does this object have relations? Yes > Are there subsumption (is-a) relations? No > Do these relations apply to synonyms? Never (as in a biliingual > dictionary, synonyms have different translations)* > Do these relations apply to homographs? No => LexicalSense > > This changes when you have proper definitions (such as how Seppälä defines > a 'definition' [2] as having at least a *genus *and a *differentia*). In > this case there is clearly a 'mental concept' being evoked by the > definition and so a lexical concept must be introduced. For the case of > Petit Larousse, we have in my mind clearly stepped over this boundary and > are talking about these 'mental concepts'. > > > 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. >> > The current axiomatization of lexical sense requires a reference. It is > possible to still have a valid resource without a reference (due to the > open world assumption) however it is a quality issue for the lexicon. We > could look to change this axiom, however we should be very conservative > about changing this, and personally I would prefer to recommend that in > cases (like bilingual dictionaries) where lexical senses are used, a dummy > reference is still introduced to promote interoperability. > >> 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. >> > Yes, I think we agree, but most print dictionaries will have to introduce > a lexical concept to be modeled in OntoLex > > *About translation: We have previously distinguished between translation > links as a process as opposed to interlingual synonymy. Interlingual > synonymy is represented in OntoLex-Lemon by means of using the same lexical > concept or ontology reference for lexical entries in different languages, > hence translation is implicit in the multilingual lexicalizations of a > concept. The VarTrans module models translation as a process that starts > with a particular sense of a lexical entry and translates it to a sense of > another lexical entry, the link represented using the VarTrans module is > thus the result of this process. > >> Best regards, >> >> Jorge >> > > Regards, > John > > [1] I mean something like this http://www.teanglann.ie/ga/fgb/focal > [2] Seppälä, Selja, Alan Ruttenberg, Yonatan Schreiber, and Barry Smith. > 2016a. Definitions in Ontologies. Cahiers de lexicologie 2(109, La > définition):173–206. > >> >> >> >> >> >> 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,_20 >> 17.10.10,_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 14:05:49 UTC