RE: [WN] Fwd: WordNet Namespace

> 
> 1- split WN-Full up into more convenient files

We also have to decide what is 'convenient'.  When I dereference wn:x
what would it be most useful to the application to get back.  You might
just return wx:x and its direct properties or you might return a bit
more.  I haven't looked at this in detail - just thought we ought to ask
the question.

Brian


> 2- make a WN-Light
> 3- serve slash uris
> 
> 1) This is not a problem, will do so. Or, if we want slash 
> URIs, this is not necessary because every resource becomes one file?
> 
> 2) I can create a separate file that attaches all 
> WordSenses/Words as labels to their Synsets. The Synset file 
> plus this new file then constitutes a WN-Light. You loose (a) 
> Word and WordSense URI; and (b) the ability to use the 
> relationships that are between WordSenses instead of between 
> Synsets (pertainsTo, participleOf, seeAlso, antonym).
> 
> Peter Mika commented that taking out the WordSense-as-Class 
> in favour of WordSenses-as-Labels seriously impairs an 
> important use of WN, namely sense disambiguation. I don't 
> know how WN is exactly used for sense disambiguation, but I 
> can imagine this situation:
> 
> - program finds relevant word in a text
> - program searches Synsets with matching labels
> - program chooses between the returned Synsets
> - program annotates the word in the text with the WN Synset URI.
> 
> For this approach WN-Light is fine. Am I missing something or 
> would WN-Light as I propose above be a good idea?
> 
> 3) I don't think we can ask Princeton to do something that is 
> more complex than serving file(s) at a particular location 
> (or can we, Aldo?). Is the slash solution practical enough?
> 
> If we do choose to use hash URIs, then should we have 
> different namespaces for the different files? This also 
> reduces the size of a download when you query for a WN URI.
> 
> Mark.
> 
> Jacco van Ossenbruggen wrote:
> > Peter Mika wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> Regarding the second issue: I think it's less of a 
> problem. Once you 
> >> agree on the actual representation of WordNet, you can make it 
> >> available either as a single file or a set of files, e.g. one for 
> >> each resource, containing only the triples where that resource 
> >> appears.
> >>
> > I agree, but you still need to define exactly what triples are 
> > returned for each type of URI.
> > So, what subgraph does resolving 
> > http://wordnet.princeton.edu/rdf/entity
> > actually return?
> > And what about http://wordnet.princeton.edu/rdf/antonym?
> > 
> >> The WordNet server can then either serve these static 
> files or run a 
> >> RESTful Web Service in the background that queries the ontology 
> >> dynamically.
> >>  
> >>
> > In theory, yes, but in practice I doubt that Princeton is going to 
> > develop such a service.
> > 
> >> In any case as Jeremy says what you want are slash URIs.
> >>  
> >>
> > I agree.
> > 
> > Jacco
> 
> --
>   Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
>         markREMOVE@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 15 December 2005 14:30:38 UTC