1. ISO/TC37/SC4/TDG6 Language Resource Ontologies 2008-05-25, Marrakech HASIDA Koiti hasida.k@aist.go.jp CfSR, AIST, Japan

2. TDG6 Issues ontologization ontologization DC, LAF, LMF, FS, MAF, SemAF, SynAF, TDG3, etc. DC, LAF, LMF, FS, MAF, SemAF, SynAF, TDG3, etc. Cf. the Pisa group’s work on LMF Cf. the Pisa group’s work on LMF extension of RDF (and ontology framework) to more straightforwardly address linguistic information extension of RDF (and ontology framework) to more straightforwardly address linguistic information extended RDF instead of XML extended RDF instead of XML nodes embedding nodes … rdf:Container? nodes embedding nodes … rdf:Container? publish TRs publish TRs launch ISs launch ISs 2

3. Ontologization ontology-based reformulation ontology-based reformulation Most current standards are based on XML and lack standard framework for semantic interpretation. Most current standards are based on XML and lack standard framework for semantic interpretation. not XML but RDF as base description and modeling tool not XML but RDF as base description and modeling tool Semantic interpretation is standardized not for XML but for RDF. Semantic interpretation is standardized not for XML but for RDF. ontology as schema ontology as schema not DTD, XML Schema, RELAXNG, etc. not DTD, XML Schema, RELAXNG, etc. 3

4. Motivations of Ontologization Lack of formal tool by which to write schemas fully addressing the specifications in ISs. Lack of formal tool by which to write schemas fully addressing the specifications in ISs. DCR model lacks descriptive power. DCR model lacks descriptive power. 4

5. Weaknesses of DCR Metamodel DCR metamodel cannot address DCR metamodel cannot address sorts of DCs: such as unary predicate, binary relation, symmetric binary relation, etc. sorts of DCs: such as unary predicate, binary relation, symmetric binary relation, etc. types of the domain (1 st arg.) and the range (2 nd arg.) of binary relations (properties) types of the domain (1 st arg.) and the range (2 nd arg.) of binary relations (properties) 5

6. Semantic Mess of XML Semantic interpretation of XML is not standardized but rather arbitrary. Semantic interpretation of XML is not standardized but rather arbitrary. Many inconsistent `standards’ on overlapping issues. Many inconsistent `standards’ on overlapping issues. Huge standards containing many different semantic interpretation manners. Huge standards containing many different semantic interpretation manners. e.g., MPEG-7 > 2000 pages e.g., MPEG-7 > 2000 pages 6

7. RDF Resource Description Framework Resource Description Framework W3C recommendation http://www.w3.org/RDF/ W3C recommendation http://www.w3.org/RDF/ http://www.w3.org/RDF/ basis of ontology standards such as RDFS, OWL, and SKOS. basis of ontology standards such as RDFS, OWL, and SKOS. graph data model graph data model textual representation textual representation XML XML N3 N3 7

8. RDF Graph http://www.example.org/people#fredhttp://www.example.org/people#fred http://meetings.example.com/m1/hphttp://meetings.example.com/m1/hp m:homePagem:homePage m:attendingm:attending http://meetings.example.com/cal#m1http://meetings.example.com/cal#m1 m:givenNamem:givenName FredFred m:hasEmailm:hasEmail mailto:fred@example.commailto:fred@example.com 8

9. Cf. RDF in Text XML N3 <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/meeting_organization#" xmlns="http://www.example.org/people#" xmlns:p="http://www.example.org/personal_details#"> Fred <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:m="http://www.example.org/meeting_organization#" xmlns="http://www.example.org/people#" xmlns:p="http://www.example.org/personal_details#"> Fred @prefix p:. @prefix m:. m:homePage. p:GivenName "Fred"; p:hasEmail ; m:attending. @prefix p:. @prefix m:. m:homePage. p:GivenName "Fred"; p:hasEmail ; m:attending. 9 Let’s forget these texts and use graphs!

10. ISO 24610: Feature Structure typed feature structure as in HPSG, etc. typed feature structure as in HPSG, etc. ISO 24610-1: Feature Structure Representation ISO 24610-1: Feature Structure Representation ISO 24610-2: Feature System Declaration ISO 24610-2: Feature System Declaration graph model graph model AVM (attribute-value matrix) AVM (attribute-value matrix) textual encoding by XML textual encoding by XML 10

11. FS Graph determinerdeterminer POSPOS SPECIFIERSPECIFIER ORTHORTHlala HEADHEAD AGRAGR AGRAGR nounnoun POSPOS ORTHORTH pommepomme singularsingular NUMBERNUMBER 11

12. FS in AVM SPECIFIER HEAD POSdeterminer ORTH`la’ AGR [1] [NUMBER singular] POSnoun ORTH`pomme’ AGR [1] 12

13. FS in XML la pomme la pomme 13 Let’s forget this, too!

14. FS in RDF Graph (= FS Graph) determinerdeterminer POSPOS SPECIFIERSPECIFIER ORTHORTHlala HEADHEAD AGRAGR AGRAGR nounnoun POSPOS ORTHORTHpommepomme singularsingular NUMBERNUMBER 14

15. FS in RDF/N3 [ fs:specifier [ fs:pos fs:determiner; fs:orth "la"; fs:agr ] fs:head [ fs:pos fs:noun; fs:orth "pomme"; fs:agr ] ] fs:number fs:singular. [ fs:specifier [ fs:pos fs:determiner; fs:orth "la"; fs:agr ] fs:head [ fs:pos fs:noun; fs:orth "pomme"; fs:agr ] ] fs:number fs:singular. 15

16. Ontologies Subsume Feature Systems Features are partial functions, whereas RDF properties are relations in general (possibly partial functions). Features are partial functions, whereas RDF properties are relations in general (possibly partial functions). Usual feature systems have no taxonomy of features, whereas usual ontologies have taxonomies of properties (e.g., due to rdfs:subPropertyOf). Usual feature systems have no taxonomy of features, whereas usual ontologies have taxonomies of properties (e.g., due to rdfs:subPropertyOf). 16

17. wordword The fundamental type for individual words The orthographic representation for this word The fundamental type for individual words The orthographic representation for this word orthorth Feature Structure Declaration 17 signsign rdfs:domainrdfs:domain stringstringrdfs:rangerdfs:range rdfs:subClassOfrdfs:subClassOf The fundamental type for individual words rdfs:commentrdfs:comment The orthographic representation for this word rdfs:commentrdfs:comment owl:FunctionalPropertyowl:FunctionalProperty rdf:typerdf:type

18. Constraint (Conditional) 18 XX invinv truetrue finfin auxaux vformvform XX truetrue condcond named graph

19. FS Ontologization (Summary) RDF ⊃ FS RDF ⊃ FS Use ontologies for feature-system declarations. Use ontologies for feature-system declarations. We need RDF-based notations to encode constraints. We need RDF-based notations to encode constraints. Defaults are outside of ontology. Defaults are outside of ontology. 19

20. ISO 24612: Linguistic Annotation Framework 20

21. RDF Extended for Embedding ● ●● ●● ●● ● ● ●● ●● ●● ● NUMBERNUMBER a node embedding nodes 21 rdfs:typerdfs:type NPNP TheThe clockclock SINGSING rdfs:typerdfs:type TOKENTOKEN POSPOS BASEBASE THETHE DETDET rdfs:typerdfs:type POSPOS NNNN BASEBASE CLOCKCLOCK possibly stand-off annotation

22. Prospects RDF as basic data structure RDF as basic data structure Graph model is essential. Graph model is essential. Forget about textual encoding such as XML Forget about textual encoding such as XML though W3C insists on plain-test encoding. though W3C insists on plain-test encoding. ontology to address FSD ontology to address FSD straightforward to basically declare features and feature structures straightforward to basically declare features and feature structures need some inventions for constraints need some inventions for constraints extension of RDF extension of RDF embeddings (of strings) embeddings (of strings) collections (sets, bags, lists) collections (sets, bags, lists) lots more to do lots more to do 22