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

Re: [WNET] a little progress

From: Aldo Gangemi <a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 23:39:38 +0200
Message-Id: <p06110408bce93e9d7ed2@[212.34.219.175]>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
Cc: SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Thanks to Brian for the good presentation effort.
I agree on the disclaimer by Dan, and it nicely fit the draft note 
I've just posted as a TF description.

Let's move on then
Aldo

At 12:09 -0400 5-06-2004, Dan Brickley wrote:
>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
>instances.
>
>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...
>
>cheers,
>
>Dan


-- 
Aldo Gangemi
Research Scientist
Laboratory for Applied Ontology
Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technology
National Research Council (ISTC-CNR)
Via Nomentana 56, 00161, Roma, Italy
Tel: +390644161535
Fax: +3906824737
a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it
Received on Sunday, 6 June 2004 17:39:43 UTC

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