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

Re: [WNET] Fwd: Re: W3C Task Force on Porting Wordnet to the Semantic Web

From: Philippe Martin <phmartin@meganesia.sci.griffith.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 11:07:43 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200405031450.i43EoJ910935@meganesia.int.gu.edu.au>
To: danny666@virgilio.it
Cc: Aldo Gangemi <a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, phmartin@meganesia.int.gu.edu.au





Danny,


> It sounds like the antonym side could be tricky, again with something of 
> a mixup between instances and classes - map mostly to owl:disjointWith 
> then tidy exceptions to owl:differentFrom ??

WordNet categories are all supposed to have different meaning.
simple exclusion -> owl:disjointWith
closed subtype partition -> daml:disjointUnionOf (which can be defined
                               using owl:disjointWith and owl#union_of)


> >> Independently developed extensions stored in static Web documents are
> >> difficult to merge (manually, and even more automatically) in a
> >> semantically/logically/ontologically correct way and hence
> >> hard to re-use for genuine knowledge based management purposes.
> >
> Hence RDF/OWL...

I was referring to static documents containing knowledge representations
(hence RDF+OWL documents from your point of view) and claiming that these
were not scalable supports for knowledge building and sharing, hence the 
need for knowledge servers piggy-backing one another so that the advantages
of centralisation and distribution are combined.

A common interchange language is just the very beginning (RDF+OWL is not
not a good beginning "for knowledge modelling" and "as an interlingua" 
since it is poorly expressive and low-level, but these are not the goals
of RDF and OWL according to their authors; some details and examples on
these language-related points are in 
http://www.webkb.org/doc/model/comparisons.html).

Shared ontologies, knowledge servers, replication strategies and,
systematically forgotten but very important too, knowledge representation
conventions (e.g. see http://www.webkb.org/doc/doc/conventions.html),
are other important bricks.
If I include "automatic knowledge merging techniques" to this list, I also
have to include "natural language understanding" because both will
require huge amounts of background/commonsense knowledge. That's the long
term solution.


> The knowledge interchange angle is likely to have wider impact - if two 
> organizations wish to exchange information then the unambiguously 
> defined terms based on the WN lexicon combined with RDF/OWL logic 
> provides a common language through which to communicate.

WordNet (lexical ontology, no formal definitions, very poorly structured)
may be good as a "general hat" (for indexation/retrieval and documentation)
but more ontologies (top-level+domain) and an expressive language are 
needed to define terms with some degrees of precision.

Two weeks ago, I learned that in some of its documentations, IBM Washington
precise the meaning of terms they use by referring to categories in WebKB-2
(for each category, its names, its gloss, and a URL in WebKB-2 is used).


Philippe
Received on Friday, 25 June 2004 10:20:56 UTC

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