- From: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:11:57 +0200
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- CC: Quentin Reul <qreul@csd.abdn.ac.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hi,
>>See [1] for the currently completed draft. There are no plans for SKOS
>>versions, although I did include some ideas about that. You have to make
>>a choice if you want to see Synsets or WordSenses as skos:Concepts.
>
>
> Or both?
Possibly. Either choice has pros and cons. If you want both:
wn:Synset -> skos:Concept
[all its lexical
forms] -> skos:altLabel
wn:WordSense -> skos:Concept
[wordform attached
to the Sense's Word] -> skos:prefLabel
wn:hyponymOf -> skos:broader
wn:[other props between synsets]-> skos:related
left over: props between WordSenses, and a missing link between
Synsets and WordSenses. All Synset-concepts are "orphans" (not related
to the WordSense-concepts with a skos relation, while the
Wordsense-concepts carry the hierarchical info). This results in a bit
strange thesaurus but doesn't loose that much info.
But it's maybe a better idea to drop the WordSenses altogether.
Synsets form the real idea of a "concept" in WordNet.
But then you have to drop the relations between wordsenses, and you
have to group all hyponym relations of a synset's wordsenses into the
new skos concept (and then turn them into skos:broader)? Then you
really start reinterpreting the original source...
Mark.
--
Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
markREMOVE@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
Received on Tuesday, 24 October 2006 10:12:27 UTC