W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > February 2009

owl:sameAs links from OpenCyc to WordNet

From: David Baxter <retxabd@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:53:02 -0600
Message-ID: <b5c753fd0902230953g282ee01anb8272ecad2eb9361@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi all,

We at Cycorp have been publishing owl:sameAs links from our OpenCyc concepts
to WordNet synsets, e.g.

 <http://sw.opencyc.org/2008/06/10/concept/en/India> owl:sameAs <
http://www.w3.org/2006/03/wn/wn20/instances/synset-India-noun-1>

We've done so with the idea that the WordNet synset represents the same
concept as the OpenCyc term (i.e. the South Asian country in this case), and
contains further relevant information that complements what is available in
OpenCyc, e.g.

 "is a member of OPEC" (OK, this one's of dubious value, but it might be
useful if it were true)
 "is a member of the British Commonwealth"
 "is a part of Asia"

However, WordNet also contains assertions about the "India" synset that seem
strange to assert about the country, e.g.

 "is an instance of NounSynset"
 "contains WordSense 'Republic of India 1'"

We'd like to know what the general feeling in the LOD community is about
these links. Is there any precedent or consensus about the best way to link
from ontologies such as OpenCyc's to WordNet? Is anyone finding these links
useful and/or harmful?

Thanks for any input.

David Baxter
Received on Monday, 23 February 2009 18:02:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:19 UTC