W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > February 2006

Re: [WN] Wordnet review

From: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:06:24 +0100
Message-ID: <43FAE620.2060108@cs.vu.nl>
To: SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>


Dear Jacco,

Thanks a lot for the review! Some replies below.

> First, I've seen no systematic reply from the editors to the issues 
> raised in the first round of reviews.  I've not noticed any omissions, 
> but did not do a systematic check myself either.

Yes you are right we have made no overview of the replies and how we
resolved them. I did go through all the emails to check that we
addressed the issues brought up as well we could. Will try to be more
systematic from now on (see also the Change Log of this draft [1])

> Second, there are still a lot of [TODOs] left, and I found that the many 

Most of these are either small issues or have to do with the fact that
we do not have a site to host the conversion yet, i.e. I marked the
places where the URL should be inserted.

> short sections and many appendices still make it a quite a hard read.

Could you maybe expand on this point? I hoped sections 1-3 would make
a smooth read for anyone already familiar with RDF or WordNet. From
there on it is much more detailed. We tried to address one issue per
section or appendix to make it a more reference-style document (most
people should only need sects. 1-3 as indicated in the Guide to the
Reader). Would you have suggestions on how to make it less hard to read?

> The main thing I miss are some basic guidelines on "how do I use this as 
> an annotator".  I am a bit reluctant to bring this up because it might 
> get us into the httpRange-14 discussion again, I'd I would prefer to 
> avoid that.  It may also be out of scope to go into this deeply, but 
> some simple answer to basic questions like: if I want to annotate some 
> resource as having a myns:color property with value wn:red,  do I use 
> the URI to the Word, the WordSense or the Synset or 'red'? If I want to 

I am reluctant to agree with you here, although more guidance is
always useful to readers. Firstly, I am wondering whether this kind of
instructions belong here. This document describes the conversion and
its rationale and basic guidance on how to use it (downloading,
querying). To make a comparison, the SKOS Core Guide [2] also does not
explain how to "use" SKOS (i.e. convert thesauri to SKOS). A "use
case" document is planned for that purpose. Secondly, adding yet
another section would add another fragment which makes it currently a
hard read as you said.

> I would also appreciate it if the new instance date would become 
> available.  During the first review, many issues only came up after 
> using the rdf files in a real application (Mark knows which app I'm 
> talking about:-).

Will try to start on that soon, but I was also waiting for the reviews
(e.g. some comments on the new strategy for URIs) before I start
changing the code.

> - Is there agreement with Princeton about hosting the RDF and the URI?

Yes, Aldo has been in contact with Princeton about the URI. The
hosting however they would not have to do (that's the beauty of the
proposal). They'd only need to implement the server rewrite rules.

> Appendix F: Relation to previous versions
> The discussion about the Word 'chat' suggest that all synsets are 
> language independent.
> I'm no expert, but it looks to my like an assumption that may be 
> questionable, and certainly not one to make implicitly.

Maybe this was phrased a bit awkward. That section is about our
motivation to represent words as instances with URIs, and has nothing
to do with synsets. Will rephrase.

> Maybe you could have a single (sub)section devoted to i18n?
> This could also discuss what URIs to use for other languages, how to
> link related intances of Word, WordSense and Synset of different
> languages, etc. The use of diacritics etc.

This would then contain two subtopics: use of xml:lang and possible
integration with other WordNets.

> What about the use of xml:lang='en' .  Do you need to distinguish 
> between US and UK English here?  (I think you do!).

Woops. Thanks for spotting this, will fix!

> Appendix H: Open Issues
> - Need to check for possible bugs in Prolog conversion
>   program that make it generate wrong RDF output. Also use
>   DL reasoner to check for problems.
> 
> I'm no expert in this, but isn't the mere fact that you use rdfs:label 
> on instances sufficient to move you out of DL?
> Could this be a reason not to use rdfs:label in for Word instances?

Woops again. The first part of the sentence needed to stay, forgot to
delete the second part.

Thanks again,
Mark.

-----
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wn-conversion.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-guide/
-- 
  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
        markREMOVE@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark


-- 
  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
        markREMOVE@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 10:06:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:46 UTC