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

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

From: John McCrae <john@mccr.ae>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 15:06:58 +0100
Message-ID: <CAC5njqruZe83=jfL0HONzVfChXcoAEX8fEoAYGu8OWjTf7UWkw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Shoaib M. Chaudhary" <muhemmed.shoaib@gmail.com>
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>
Hello Shoaib,

The meeting took place at 15:00 CEST today. To join the next meeting please
join the Skype group at https://join.skype.com/ch2Wsi84Zb1c and the next
call will be announced shortly.

Regards,
John

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Shoaib M. Chaudhary <
muhemmed.shoaib@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 14:07:27 UTC

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