W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > June 2004

Re: [WNET] a little progress

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:09:43 -0400
To: "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
Cc: SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20040605160943.GJ2557@homer.w3.org>

From a quick quick look, is nice progress. I'd add in a status/scope
disclaimer of some kind though, to note early on something like...

"This document presents an RDF/OWL representation of the entire structure of
Wordnet. By doing so, we allow Wordnet data to be accessed via RDF APIs 
and query languages, and to be mixed with non-Wordnet data, as well as
with other lexically-oriented material, such as extensions to, and 
derrivatives of, Wordnet and Wordnet-tagged corpuses. A related but
distinct activity would be to describe the use of Wordnet as a basis for 
RDF/OWL class and/or property hierarchy. Wordnet's noun term (hypernym) 
hierarchy captures "an X is a kind of Y" relationships between English 
category terms based on conventional usage. While there are several
projects working in this area, it is not a task we currently address in
this document.

This current document does not explore the issues raised
by the mapping of Wordnet structures into RDF (eg. noun terms and/or
synsets into classes). Future revisions of this document, or companion
documents, may address some of the issues this raises, such as the 
different assumptions underlying lexical databases when contrasted with 
formal ontologies. Here we concentrate on reflecting into RDF/XML the 
core structures and content of Wordnet, without consideration for
mapping those notions into RDF's own notions of classes, properties and 

This approach echoes that of SKOS [ref], which reflects into 
RDF the broader/narrower relationships used by thesauri, without 
requiring that each thesauri be re-engineered as an RDF/OWL class
hierarchy. Unlike SKOS, the structuring vocabulary used here draws 
directly from the conceptual framework underpinning Wordnet, allowing
for concepts such as 'antonym' to be used to relate concepts/synsets.
It may be possible for future versions of this document and SKOS to 
share more common structure, since the structuring vocabularies address
similar (yet distinct) problems."

Hmm ok that was off the top of my head, and also a bit of an attempt to
explain how three different workitems we are playing with might fit
together. Not sure how best to use it. Comments welcomed...


Received on Saturday, 5 June 2004 12:09:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:39 UTC