W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > September 2010

Re: WordNet RDF

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:18:33 +0100
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>, semantic-web@w3.org, public-lod@w3.org, Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>, Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
Message-ID: <20100922001833.1502de8b@miranda.g5n.co.uk>
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:45:07 +0200
Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Very interesting! I'm curious though: what's the application scenario
> that made you create this version?

It makes it easy to insult people in RDF.

	<#you> a wordnet:Fool . #!!!

More seriously, it's mostly just designed as a drop-in replacement for
danbri's old Wordnet RDF stuff which went offline some time ago. Though
this is based on a newer version of Wordnet and has SKOSey stuff thrown
in as a bonus.

> How do you make the distinction between the two situations--I mean,
> based on which elements in the Wordnet data?

*I* don't.

If somebody decides that wordnet:Crack is accurate and specific enough
for them, even though it's a class that covers sound effects, Class A
drugs and fissures, then that's fine by me. If they want more specific
classes, then those are provided too.

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2010 23:19:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:38 GMT