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

[MM/WN] revised semantic web example using WordNet

From: Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 16:17:51 +0200
Message-ID: <445A0D0F.6060402@cwi.nl>
To: "Jeff Z. Pan" <jpan@csd.abdn.ac.uk>
CC: swbp <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>

Jeff, Mark,

I've revised Jeff's example in [1].  I think the previous example
suffered from the typical thing that many of the points the original
example wanted to make did not survive the (too) many rounds of
simplification by (too) many different people.  It was also suggesting
that the DC-based approach is different from the ontology based
approach, which is a bit unfair because DC actually recommends using
values from controlled vocabulary and is organizing their own properties
more and more in a nice hierarchy. I also did not like that the first
example was an instance level annotation and the other a schema level
class definition.  I also doubt that many readers will understand and/or
appreciate the subtle differences between the example OWL class
definition and a similar definition in UML or Java (with the risk of
them thinking: oh now, yet another language for OO modeling).

So instead, I put in two lines of RDF based on the Wordnet vocabulary,
to stress the difference between annotating using string values versus
RDF -defined concepts such as WordNet's.

Jeff, could you check if you still agree with the whole section.

Mark, I've used dc:subject to refer to two wordnet concepts:

<dc:subject
rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2006/03/wn/wn20/instances/synset-Indian_elephant-noun-1"/>
<dc:subject
rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2006/03/wn/wn20/instances/synset-Ganesh-noun-1"/>

Have I used the right URIs?  Other comments?

Thanks,

Jacco

[1]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/MM/image_annotation.html#semweb_intro
Received on Thursday, 4 May 2006 14:18:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:21 GMT