- From: David Baxter <retxabd@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:53:02 -0600
- To: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <b5c753fd0902230953g282ee01anb8272ecad2eb9361@mail.gmail.com>
Hi all, We at Cycorp have been publishing owl:sameAs links from our OpenCyc concepts to WordNet synsets, e.g. <http://sw.opencyc.org/2008/06/10/concept/en/India> owl:sameAs < http://www.w3.org/2006/03/wn/wn20/instances/synset-India-noun-1> We've done so with the idea that the WordNet synset represents the same concept as the OpenCyc term (i.e. the South Asian country in this case), and contains further relevant information that complements what is available in OpenCyc, e.g. "is a member of OPEC" (OK, this one's of dubious value, but it might be useful if it were true) "is a member of the British Commonwealth" "is a part of Asia" However, WordNet also contains assertions about the "India" synset that seem strange to assert about the country, e.g. "is an instance of NounSynset" "contains WordSense 'Republic of India 1'" We'd like to know what the general feeling in the LOD community is about these links. Is there any precedent or consensus about the best way to link from ontologies such as OpenCyc's to WordNet? Is anyone finding these links useful and/or harmful? Thanks for any input. David Baxter
Received on Monday, 23 February 2009 18:02:55 UTC