[WNET] RDFS for WordNet datamodel

Hi wnetters,

please have a look at a revised version of the RDFS for Wordnet 
datamodel written by Brian last Saturday:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Jun/0019.html

I have added some missing properties, corrected various typos and 
syntax, and commented a bit the decision to include "word senses" in 
the domain of WNET RDFS.

In fact, in principle we don't need a such thing like "word senses", 
because we already have words and synsets (the senses for sets of 
words). But being able to annotate documents with resources linked 
both to exactly one sense and to exactly one word seems an advantage.

I haven't the time to write a complete report out of the note 
skeleton sketched by Brian, since I decided to allocate my two cents 
of time to the RDFS revision. please have a look at it, so that we 
can arrive to an export of the Prolog DB asap.

Best
Aldo

At 8:14 +0100 7-06-2004, McBride, Brian wrote:
>Opps creative editing by my touchpad.
>
>My first question is, do we want to start with an initial note describing
>the vocabulary, or do we focus on the getting the schema done.  Peronally,
>I'm marginally in favour of a note, but would appreciate feedback from
>folks.
>
>Brian
>
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: McBride, Brian
>>  Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 8:06 AM
>>  To: Aldo Gangemi; Dan Brickley; McBride, Brian
>>  Cc: SWBPD list
>>  Subject: RE: [WNET] a little progress
>>
>> 
>>
>>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  > From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
>>  > [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Aldo Gangemi
>>
>>  [...]
>> 
>>  > Thanks to Brian for the good presentation effort.
>>  > I agree on the disclaimer by Dan, and it nicely fit the draft note
>>
>>  I can add that in.  I have a couple of questions:
>>
>>  1) After starting the note I realised that it is going to be
>>  a bit of work to produce and maybe the important thing is the
>>  vocabulary for representing wordnet.  That said, on coming to
>>  Wordnet, I found it wan't that easy to figure out what was
>>  going on as the documentation used linguistic terms that were
>>  unfamiliar to me, so a brief explanation aimed at sw folks
>>  would make that easier.  Also, reading the task force
>>  description suggests the note comes later, when we have done
>>  more work on the relationship to ontologies.
>>
>>  2) Would it make sense to create a wordnet subdirectory in
>>  the WG webspace to hold WNET drafts etc?
>>
>>  Brian
>>
>>
>>
>>  > 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
>>  >
>>


-- 
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 Friday, 25 June 2004 10:14:29 UTC