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

RE: [WNET] Please send info

From: Aldo Gangemi <a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 01:46:39 +0100
Message-Id: <p06110431be3ade53e1bd@[80.181.228.127]>
To: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Here I am, Mike

At 16:48 -0800 27-01-2005, Uschold, Michael F wrote:
>Thanks Aldo.
>
>My immediate need is to better understand the 
>relationship between WN and OWL. The objectives 
>for the TF are the exact things I want to know 
>better.
>
>Specifically, I want to use an OWL version of 
>WN, and augment it with some domain-specific 
>terms and make use of it for an internal project.

In fact this goes exactly in the direction of the TF

>I know that there are plenty of shortcomings of 
>WN when viewed as an ontology, (such as 
>semantically dubious hypernymy relationships). 
>Is there any advice one can give to diminish the 
>impact of such shortcomings?

Some papers on the TF page address these issues. 
Consider that both in OWN, and in other work, 
including the OWL version realized by Georgi Y. 
Dimitrov, the ambiguity of hypernymy has been 
resolved

>Is there more than one OWL version of WN? Are 
>the differences important? Is there a 'best' one 
>to download?

I'm collecting all them (I'll prepare an 
exhibition soon ;)). One task of the forthcoming 
note concerns the comparison of different 
proposals, ranging from the bare import of WN 
database into RDF, to complex reengineering like 
OWN (OntoWordNet)

>Has anyone tried to upload an OWL WN into 
>Protégé, or any other OWL editor? Would it 
>handle it? I'm going to try it out and see...

OWN has been loaded into OilEd and Protege (SWOOP 
seems to fail), see related messages and 
description. Protege takes 8 minutes to load it 
on a Powerbook G4 1.5GHz.

>Is there any experience with people who wish to 
>build a domain-specific extension to WN, say 
>that would include lots of jargon common in any 
>technical field. Various issues/options come to 
>mind.
>1. One might extend the OWL version of WN with 
>the new concepts, and not have a separate 
>ontology for the domain.
>2. Build a separate OWL ontology, (a real 
>ontology, with relations, constraints etc), and 
>then extend WN semi-automatically by extracting 
>the class hierarchy (and leaving the richer 
>domain ontology intact, possibly for other 
>purposes)

I think option 2. is much better, and indeed is 
what I'm envisaging with the open-source 
collaboration project I would like to propose: 
any interested party could checkout a small 
module of WN, improve it, and check it in back to 
a collaborative platform

>
>Such are my practical concerns and questions. 
>Think of me as a [the first?] real customer for 
>the products of this Task Force.

You're a perfect testimonial. Though I'd rather 
avoid thinking of such a project in commercial 
terms :)

>I still need to do more reading of the archives to get up to speed.
>The best thing anyone could do for me right 
>away, is give me a very small number of pointers 
>of what to read first.

Looking forward to hear you at Wednesday's telecon.
Ciao
Aldo

>Thanks,
>Mike
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Aldo Gangemi [mailto:a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it]
>Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 1:23 PM
>To: Uschold, Michael F; jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com; schreiber@cs.vu.nl
>Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
>Subject: Re: [WNET] Please send info
>
>
>At 13:00 -0800 27-01-2005, Uschold, Michael F wrote:
>>I have a need to get up to date quickly on the role of OWL and Wordnet,
>>so I'd like to read some of the notes your TF has produced.
>>
>>I spent 10-15 min skimming the email archieves, and did not see much
>>traffic recently.
>>
>>Guus said he was going to send me some links.
>>This is a reminder.
>>
>>Thanks
>>Mike
>
>Hi Mike,
>
>I don't know about Jeremy and Guus, but I have been unavailable for
>much time. I still plan to return on this, and have new links, like
>the ISLE model for lexical repositories (I had ported it to OWL),
>which I want to submit to the WN-TF as a starting point for a general
>treatment of lexica.
>
>On the second TF activity (WordNet as an ontology), I also have an
>OWL ontology of WordNet noun synsets, aligned to DOLCE, for those
>interested. But I cannot actively work on these issues for at least
>two weeks. Contact me if you need some urgent material.
>
>Cheers
>Aldo
>--
>
>
>
>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: +390644161513
>a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it
>
>*******************
>!!! please don't use the old gangemi@ip.rm.cnr.it
>address, because it is under spam attack


-- 



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: +390644161513
a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it

*******************
!!! please don't use the old gangemi@ip.rm.cnr.it
address, because it is under spam attack
Received on Friday, 18 February 2005 00:47:15 GMT

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