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

Re: [WN] comments on draft

From: <mark@few.vu.nl>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 23:25:52 +0100
Message-ID: <1133043952.4388e0f03431c@www.few.vu.nl>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>, Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org


> > Technically, a mapping could be done between the two semantics, but 
> > the interpretation of all synsets as classes and of all hypernymOf 
> > relations as subClassOf is untenable wrt intuition, because many 
> > synsets refer to individuals, 
> ...that's a bug in the data, not the metamodel, one might argue.
We can offer the synsets-as-classes option for those who would like to use it in
that way, by describing that they can add

- wn:Synset rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Class
- wn:hyponymOf rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subClassOf

to the version we have now. If this is desirable to promote is another point.
(You also have more "useless" triples than when we'd make an additional
conversion that converts it directly into a subclass hierarchy.)

> > many hypernymOf relations refer to instanceOf (rd:type), and there are 
> > other problems. This means that semantic porting needs data 
> > reengineering, not just schema translation.

BTW the new WN 2.1 version has a new "instance" relation; Paris is an instance
of the synset "national capital" [1]. Time permitting this information could be
incorporated. But still it would need data reengineering to turn it into a
"clean" ontology.


Received on Sunday, 27 November 2005 01:43:49 UTC

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