W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpmlod@w3.org > May 2014

Re: [bpmlod] Guidelines for converting BabelNet as Linguistic Linked Data

From: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 15:57:17 +0200
Message-ID: <53873CBD.5070900@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
To: Tiziano Flati <tiziano.flati@gmail.com>, lider <lider@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, public-bpmlod@w3.org
Dear Tiziano, all,

thanks for sending along this nice description. I reviewed it carefully; 
some comments here:

1) You do not say anything about how the conversion is implemented 
technically, how and where the original data is stored etc. It would be 
useful I think to have half a page or so describing how you have 
implemented the conversion.

2) Choice of URIs: There is very little rationale for how you decided to 
engineer the URIs, i.e. description of why you adopted the URI naming 
scheme. A few notes on this for every entity would be good I think.

3)"Information about translation confidence (was it humanly or 
automatically produced? if automatic, with what confidence score?) and 
translation provenance (what text(s) does the translation come from? who 
translated and with what tool?). " -> not clear what the issue here is? 
That the information can not be represented with the translation 
relation? It would be good to make the issue explicit.

4) "Another issue concerns whether the relation lexinfo:translationis 
essential or not: every sense in a language within a BabelSynset is, in 
fact, a translation of any other sense in another language, so that this 
information could actually be derived (problem of redundancy). However, 
having data linked one to each other could also be a benefit, since the 
information is explicit in the resource. " => This point is not clear to 
me? Are you discussing if you could do without a translation relation? 
So how do you represent translation relations without any translation 
property? Sorry, this point is not clear to me.

5) "If this is true that some terms in the Dublin Core vocabular, 
according to http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-prov-dc-20130312/, can be 
mapped in a one-to-one correspondence to terms in the PROV-O (e.g., 
dc:provenance can be mapped to the PROV-O term prov:has_provenance), 
this is unfortunately not always the case (e.g., dc:license has no 
direct corresponding term in the PROV-O)." -> sentence seems broken, at 
least vocabular should be "vocabulary"; the sentence is not clear in 

Finally, it would be good to end the text with "Recommendations" saying 
what best practices we recommend for somebody who wants to tansform a 
similar resource to Linked Data. Can we give a list of Recommended 
Practices and "Not Recommended Practices" i.e. DOs and DONTs. That would 
be very useful I think.

We could have this DOs and DONTs for all types of resources.

Very nice work in general!

Best regards,


Am 22.05.14 10:12, schrieb Tiziano Flati:
> Dear all,
> we have compiled a first draft of guidelines for the conversion of 
> BabelNet as Linguistic Linked Data. The initial draft is here 
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/184C_AjY7_PYBSc8SnAFghGLyTo1v312N34dsP9QZokI/edit#>.
> We can probably integrate this into the BPMLOD community report both 
> as a separate document and in the form of all our resource-dependent 
> and independent details/comments.
> Any feedback and comment is also very appreciated and will help us 
> improving the draft.
> Best regards,
> Tiziano Flati and Roberto Navigli


Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano

Phone: +49 521 106 12249
Fax: +49 521 106 12412
Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de

Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS)
Raum 2.307
Universit├Ąt Bielefeld
Inspiration 1
33619 Bielefeld
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2014 13:57:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:45:37 UTC