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

Re: [WN] comments on draft

From: Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 10:03:11 +0100
Message-ID: <438824CF.8070205@cwi.nl>
To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org

Review of http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark/wn/wn-conversion.html

I agree with the comments posted previously by Jeremy (see below).
In addition, as a reader I was a bit confused about the many open 
issues. What makes things worse is that the possible solutions to many 
of the open issues are unsufficiently documented that I, as the reader, 
can form an opinion about them. 

Minor remarks:
-Section 3, explains the prolog format of  
    Please also explain the last three arguments, or state that they are 
explained in Appendix A

-Section 4, do not forget to resolve [WHY DOES WORD NOT HAVE THESE SUBCLASSES?].
-Figure caption "The clas hierarchy of WordNet:", fix typo in class, remove ending colon
-You do not use subClassOf a la Brickley.  Maybe an example of how to get the same semantics using
 RDF meta modeling is in place?
-The document suggest there has not yet been contact with Princeton about the namespace. Should this not be
 done before going public?  If not, has a meeting with Princeton already been scheduled?
-How to generate URIs for other languages?  Related to resolving:[THIS IGNORES LANGUAGE ISSUE! 
 should we append language indicator?]. Also related: URI vs IRI (How to deal with non-latin1 languages).
 Do translations use the same Prolog format?  Works the converter program also for these translations?
-In appendix A, would it make sense to adopt the prolog convention of writing Variables with a starting capital?
 As a prolog programmer, it took me a while to realize what was a atom, literal or variable/placeholder in the 
 prolog code fragments.


Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> Reviewed document:
> http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark/wn/wn-conversion.html
> 1. the abstract is not an abstract
> 2. abstract/sotd or intro needs to set expectations about target
> audience and contribution of this document, and its non-objectives
> i.e.
> [[
> The TF should produce guidelines for transforming existing wordnets into
> an RDF/OWL representation. Guidelines should describe strategies for
> converting wordnets-like structures into an RDF representation, as well
> as strategies for re-describing in RDF/OWL the content originally
> conveyed in the wordnets.
> ]]
> 3. URI issue could/should be expanded, highlighted somewhat.
> Covering:
>  - do the terms like synset etc need a different URI from the terms in
> the wordnet itself (e.g. #bank-1)
> - different URIs for different versions?
> - hash (one huge file) versus slash (303 response? WebArch issue)
> Jeremy
Received on Saturday, 26 November 2005 09:18:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:45 UTC