Re: Fwd: *semantic* frames in OntoLex-lemon

Hi John, hi Aldo, dear all,

thank you for these pointers. Another recent model is REO  
(http://aclweb.org/anthology/W17-2712.bib), which, however, doesn't seem  
to be publicly available, yet.

I'm really not sure whether an OntoLex module would be appropriate given  
the diversity of modeling approaches for such data, but one may consider  
to define an interface, e.g., by *mentioning in the documentation* that  
semantic frames are typical examples of LexicalConcepts (as they  
apparently are in both PreMon and Framester). And that makes perfect sense  
as the frame-evoking element as well as the frame itself can be  
lexicalized in different ways.

This doesn't mean that one shouldn't aim to harmonize existing  
representations for semantic frames, but this doesn't necessarily have to  
be a module in the OntoLex group -- unless there's a surge of interest.

Best,
Christian

Am .03.2018, 17:06 Uhr, schrieb Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>:

> You can have a look at the integrated frame ontology [1] of Framester’s  
> [2][3].
> Aldo
>
> [1] https://w3id.org/framester/schema/
> [2] https://figshare.com/articles/Framester/4994537
> [3] https://github.com/framester/Framester
>
>> On 8 Mar 2018, at 17:26, John McCrae <john@mccr.ae> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>> Yes, frames are intended for syntactic frames only not semantic frames  
>> such as FrameNet.
>>
>> There was an extension for syntactic frames proposed here, which I  
>> would recommend:
>> https://premon.fbk.eu/
>>
>> We could look into creating a module for this in the OntoLex group, if  
>> there is enough interest.
>>
>> Regards,
>> John
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Christian Chiarcos  
>> <chiarcos@informatik.uni-frankfurt.de> wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> just a clarification question: In my understanding, the existing  
>>> notion of "(Syntactic)Frame" in lemon focuses on valency frames (as in  
>>> >>>[the syntactic component of] VerbNet), but it is not systematically  
>>> being applied to frame semantics (PropBank, FrameNet).* Is this  
>>> >>>correct, and if so, do you think that the consensus would be rather  
>>> pointing to see semantic frames as something beyond the scope of  
>>> >>>lemon (there are very good reasons, e.g., FrameNet does not really  
>>> focus on lexical entries ~ individual predicates), or towards  
>>> extending >>>the existing specifications ?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> * I know that frame semantics is a topic for a lot of people in the  
>>> group, and also that already lemonUby included a rudimentary  
>>> >>>FrameNet model in Monnet-lemon, but this is not reflected in the  
>>> community report -- and existing FrameNet representations in RDF  
>>> >>>seem to diverge rather than to tend towards a uniform (not to  
>>> mention, lemon-based) representation -- in particular if the intended  
>>> >>>application includes reasoning.
>>> --Prof. Dr. Christian Chiarcos
>>> Applied Computational Linguistics
>>> Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität Frankfurt a. M.
>>> 60054 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
>>>
>>> office: Robert-Mayer-Str. 10, #401b
>>> mail: chiarcos@informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
>>> web: http://acoli.cs.uni-frankfurt.de
>>> tel: +49-(0)69-798-22463
>>> fax: +49-(0)69-798-28931
>>>
>>
>



-- 
Prof. Dr. Christian Chiarcos
Applied Computational Linguistics
Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität Frankfurt a. M.
60054 Frankfurt am Main, Germany

office: Robert-Mayer-Str. 10, #401b
mail: chiarcos@informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
web: http://acoli.cs.uni-frankfurt.de
tel: +49-(0)69-798-22463
fax: +49-(0)69-798-28931