W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > February 2005

RE: [WNET] WOrdnet Ontology

From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:30:44 -0000
Message-ID: <D46BE408DE18F841B90DEFA8CAA2CDB282BEE7@sdcexcea01.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Hi Mike,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Uschold, Michael F
> Sent: 03 February 2005 22:27
> To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> Subject: [WNET] WOrdnet Ontology
> 
> 
> I was googled on: [wordnet "owl lite"] and got to the Wordnet 
> TaskForce
> page:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wordnet-sw-20040713.html 
> 
> My specific goal was to find out if wordnet171.owl was in Owl 
> Lite or -DL or -Full.
> 
> There already is at least one, and possible more WN 
> ontologies in OWL already,e.g. the one at the knOWLer site.
> 
> What is the rationale for the TF to produce another WN 
> ontology in OWL.

That's a good question.

I don't have the details swapped in, but hp had some implementation
experience that knOWLer had not included a something(s) that HP needed.
I will need to lookup the details which I can't do right now, but I hope
to get something to the list soonish.

Brian
Received on Friday, 4 February 2005 15:31:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:14 GMT