W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: WordNet Task Force - work outline

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:01:41 +0100
Message-ID: <40683A55.2030901@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Aldo Gangemi <a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>
Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org

Jeremy:
>> - agreement from two or more software developers of Semantic Web tools 
>> to add API support for the schema
> 

Aldo Gangemi wrote:
> Are you offering to investigate on this?
I am offering to suggest to the Jena team that we should provide some 
support for a WordNet schema if there was *one* to support. (The range of 
choices is our main current obstacle).

I don't think we have the time to do much work on this ... the normal level 
of support we provide for such things is pretty minimal - a Java class with 
the schema property and classes as member fields - but that is quite useful 
and not very much work. I would be surprised if we would do more than that 
in the short term, (there are some Jena-team discussions that suggest we 
might want to do more).

I wouldn't want to take the lead here (in terms of what other software 
teams might do), I suggest that the message you're drafting includes a 
specific part for tools developers asking what support for WordNet they 
might include. If so I promise a response from the Jena team.



> 
> Wait wait ... WordNet as an ontology (the synset network) is stable, and 
> versioning is Princeton's work. When anyone takes it, should mention 
> which version is using, what parts are used, etc.
> The researches aimed at "changing" the synset network (in the best 
> cases) do not modify WordNet arbitrarily, but "remap" some synsets in 
> order to make it compliant to some other resource. WordNet's structure 
> is still there, but it is  "aligned" to something else (check the 
> projects I have mentioned). The benefits of these remappings are quite 
> well known and described, and have applications (cf. the FOS project I 
> have mentioned above: without alignment, we couldn't use WordNet for 
> that task).

The penny began to drop here ... I had not realised this complexity, and 
begin to see the need for 'phase two' (in my terms). That looks hard.


> 
> I hope to circulate a draft message before the next telecon.

We're making progress ...

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 29 March 2004 10:06:31 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Monday, 29 March 2004 10:06:33 EST