- From: David Baxter <retxabd@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:07:22 -0500
- To: Jason Borro <jason@openguid.net>
- Cc: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <b5c753fd0903190707h11e33195se9046fee4280ac2c@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Jason Borro <jason@openguid.net> wrote: > David, > > Sorry for missing this one earlier. Yes indeed, OpenCyc's use of > owl:sameAs caused me problems [1]. > > Your proposed solution of openCyc:synsetDenotes is interesting. If your > goal is coreference, I would invite you to make use oguid:identical [2]. Although our initial instinct was to treat WordNet synset URIs not only as coreferential, but as intensionally equivalent to the corresponding OpenCyc terms (hence our use of owl:sameAs), the consensus appears to be that synsets are lexical things, and bear only an indirect relationship to the "real-world" things they denote. > Hundreds of questionable (in terms of coreference) links from OpenCyc to > WordNet and DBPedia have been addressed in the OpenGUID database [3]. The > data is in the public domain. Excellent! If you can get me a complete list of these corrections (or a way to access them in bulk myself), I'll look into including them in the next OpenCyc release. David > > > [1] > http://groups.google.com/group/open-guid-discussion/browse_thread/thread/9bc828ebada37aab > [2] http://openguid.net/specification#identical > [3] http://openguid.net/e6839a3b-da25-102b-9a03-2db401e887ec (example with > questionable links removed) > > > David Baxter wrote: > >> 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 Thursday, 19 March 2009 14:08:01 UTC