# Graph-Based Taxonomic Semantic Class Labeling
## 4 Results and Discussion
By using the non-restrictive settings we can also notice the smaller relative score difference between the top candidates, in Table 2, as opposed to the restrictive procedure shown in Table 3 where the label candidate _philosopher-n_ is many times more prominent than other candidates in a restrictive setting. In conclusion, the non-restrictive setting should be chosen for open taxonomic labeling, while the restrictive setting produces a clearer candidate for the taxonomic representation of a semantic class, as it widens the score difference between the top candidates. Moreover, the candidate labels for abstract source concepts of a semantic class do not always exactly match the part-whole pattern, and some of them express the conventional metaphorical patterns of conceptual mapping with candidates being ontologically more distant. For example, the label candidates for the first coordination cluster of the source lexeme _love-n_, FoF\([and|or]^{low}_{i}\), consisting of lexemes: _respect-n_, _affection-n_, _friendship-n_,  
It is clear that the non-restrictive option in Table 4 produces candidates that match the metaphorical definition of _love-n_. For instance, \"love is a key\" is a conceptual metaphor used in expressions such as \"love is a key (that can open many doors)\" [51]. However, if we want a formal classification, we would opt for the restrictive procedure with the results shown in Table 5, such as \"love is a relationship\". Finally, we can also exclude lexical items in the community FoF\([and|or]_{1}^{love}\) to get the labels shown in Table 6.  
The results of these tables can be seen to represent different levels of abstraction. Table 4 is the most general and abstract, while Table 6 is the most specific and precise. The choice of which level to use will depend on the purpose it is being used for. For example, if one were trying to classify a sentiment as either positive or negative they would likely choose the more precise labels from Table 6. On the other hand, if someone was trying to give an overview of a concept, then they may opt for less precise labels such as those found in Table 4.  
This procedure, coupled with an additional investigation of ontological similarity performed at the level of the FoF\([and|or]_{s}\) network, can be used to extract the metaphorical collocations with the _is_a_ constructions. This raises a discussion about the qualitative difference between part-whole patterns of taxonomic labeling and conventional metaphorical patterns used as a proxy for labeling a semantic domain. The part-whole pattern implies that one concept is directly derived from another concept. However, conventional metaphorical patterns suggest that two concepts are related in some way, but the relationship is not necessarily literal. For example, with the label candidates for _love-n_, _respect-n_ can be seen as a part of love, as it is typically included in an understanding of what love means, while _heart-n_ may be seen more as a metaphor for love rather than being a direct part of it. Therefore, when considering the labels for abstract source concepts of a semantic class, it is important to consider the question of whether the conventional metaphorical patterns of conceptual mapping can be used as labels for a semantic class, even when they may seem ontologically distant. Especially, if it could be argued that these labels reflect our culture's use of metaphors to explain complex concepts such as love. Furthermore, it is important to consider the context of the source concept when choosing the most appropriate candidate labels for semantic classes. This can help in understanding how metaphors are used to convey meaning and how they are expressed in language. For example, a metaphor such as \"love is a key\" implies that love opens up opportunities and possibilities, while \"love is a relationship\" expresses a more intimate connection between two people. Considering this context can help to identify which of these two relations is used to convey the semantic domain of a source concept.