W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > February 2001

Re: another use case for RDF

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 12:34:15 -0500
Message-Id: <200102011729.MAA674826@smtp1.mail.iamworld.net>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
Cc: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
At 11:58 AM 2001-02-01 -0500, Dan Brickley wrote:
>On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Sean B. Palmer wrote:
>> > It's forwarded from teh RDF Interest Group. Since Sean is the
>> > perpetrator, he has likely seen it already and can be clearer about
>> > the goals, but the basic idea is dealing with spelling mistakes.
>> Yes, but it's not valid RDF because DanBri's original letter wasn't in RDF.
>> To get it to work, you'd have to convert an entire letter/page/+ to data,
>> spell check it, and then convert it back - i.e. as part of a specialized
>> spell-checker, not an RDF processor.
>> Having said that, I do like the ideas from Charles/Lisa about using RDF for
>> spell checking, a thesaurus, a dictionary, etc. DanBri's Wordnet stuff is a
>> good indicator of what RDF can do, and it would be very easy indeed to
>> modify it to become a thesaurus or a dictionary. Since Dan is now an
>> official unlurker on the list, maybe he can chip in :-)
>So WordNet is indeed a very interesting case. Unlike many Library
>thesauri, the modelling has been done cleanly enough to project the
>broader/narrower axis onto RDF's class hierarchy. This is because WordNet
>makes distinctions such as:
>(excuse the ascii art rdf)
>    fido -- type --> Dog -- subClassOf --> Mammal
>rather than the looser
>    fido -- broaderTerm --> Dog --> broaderTerm --> Mammal

Does RDF, itself, recognize [ -- type --> ] -- subClassOf --> [ -- subClassOf
--> ] ?

What is the value of distinguishing [ -- type --> ] from [ -- subClassOf
-->] ?


>...which is often what you find in thesauri. This is great for WordNet,
>since each word it defines becomes an RDF class, allowing us to write RDF
>that looks quite intutiive as XML:
>  <foaf:depicts>
>    <wn:Person foaf:name="..."> ...etc
>In the DESIRE project and at ILRT we have also done a bit of work
>reflecting classical thesauri into RDF, adopting the
>broaderTerm/narrowerTerm modelling style. I recently
>started to clean up these docs (there's an implementation too, pretty
>simple over SQL based RDF store).
>Writeup (as yet uncirculated in present form...)
> RDF Thesaurus Specification (draft)
> Conceptual relationships for encoding thesauri, classification systems and
> organised metadata collections and a proposal
>        for encoding a core set of thesaurus relationships using an RDF
>Feedback / suggestions / applications welcomed. This is intended to be a
>spec that gets deployed not one written up for academic purposes :)
Received on Thursday, 1 February 2001 12:22:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:32 UTC