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

RE: [WNET] Plan for the next telecon WNET discussion

From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 14:58:24 +0100
Message-ID: <E864E95CB35C1C46B72FEA0626A2E808031A9367@0-mail-br1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Aldo Gangemi <a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Aldo Gangemi
> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 2:29 PM
> To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> Subject: [WNET] Plan for the next telecon WNET discussion
> 
> 
> As decided in the last telecon, I propose the following issue to be 
> discussed with Christiane Fellbaum in the May 27th telecon (30 
> minutes):

As a matter of form, it is helpful to readers if writers would include
appropriate links and quotes when reference to previous decisions/discussion
are made.

Referring to 

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004May/0002.html

I see

[[
ACTION: Aldo to discuss a plan for the May 27th discussion at the next 
Telecon
]]

> 
> (a) description of the actions for short/medium term to be 
> followed by WNET-TF
> 	(a1) port of Princeton WordNet as an RDF data structure with 
> an explicit OWL datamodel
> 	(a2) set of recommendations and/or patterns w/alternatives to 
> reengineer wordnets as OWL ontologies

Hmm, I'd rather separate these out, i.e.

Issue: Encoding WordNet 1.6 in RDF/Owl
  - Can we have some help from Christiane.  Active involvement would be
good.  Willingness to review important.
  - namespace to use
  - Technical issues to discuss e.g. are synsets classes and if so what are
their instances.
  - Structuring the data - view files or knowledge server (not sure I
understand that one - are we thinking they might ship knowledge server code
as part of the distribution?)
  - Subject to Christiane being satisfied with the results, would he be
willing ot include in the standard Wnet distribution.

Other than mentioning as possible future work, I suggest we don't plan to
spend any time discussing re-engineering Wordnet or wordnets as ontologies.

I think it would be great to have a strawman distributed before to discuss
at the telecon.  This might be based on Guus' proposal.

I'll be interested to see whether Owl is required for this.  As usual I'm
inclined to prefer to have a non-Owl version available.

> 
> (b) availability of Princeton to include an OWL-RDF (datamodel+data) 
> version (as at (a1)) in the official distribution
> 
> (c) availability of Princeton (and/or other initiatives in which 
> Christiane is involved) to include (possibly by participating in the 
> development of) our recommendations and patterns at (a2)) in some 
> official set of guidelines or joint programme
> 
> If I receive no further suggestion, 

Sorry, but you've got another suggestion.  I feat the task force leader's
enthusiams and mine lie in different places.

I'll consider these issues as a 
> reference to produce a report on WNET activity some days before the 
> telecon, so that we will not need much time to clarify the respective 
> backgrounds.

Showing willing by having a first cut would seem like a good thing.

Naively
Brian
Received on Thursday, 13 May 2004 09:58:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:38 UTC