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

Re: WordNet RDF

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:50:48 +0200
Message-ID: <4C9A25D8.2070001@few.vu.nl>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
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>
On 9/22/10 1:18 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
> 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.

Ah, ok, my misunderstanding. I thought that you had created http://ontologi.es/WordNet/data/Fool because all fool synsets were very similar, and not http://ontologi.es/WordNet/data/Crack because there would be too different meanings below that one. But now that I've seen that http://ontologi.es/WordNet/data/Crack in fact exists, I infer that you've created them for all these possible groups of synsets.


Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2010 15:51:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:22 UTC