Re: WordNet RDF

> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 14:30:52 +0100
> Ian Davis<lists@iandavis.com>  wrote:
>
>> This is based on the RDF conversion at
>> http://semanticweb.cs.vu.nl/lod/wn30/
>>
>> How similar is your work to this version?
>
> They're similar in that they're both based on Wordnet 3. There are some
> key differences though:
>
> 1. The vu.nl version includes all of Wordnet. Mine is just the nouns.
>
> 2. The vu.nl version uses a SKOS-like modelling (though not SKOS):
> "cat" for example has an rdf:type of something like "Noun". In mine,
> "Cat" would have an rdf:type of rdfs:Class - i.e. I define each noun
> as a class. I also include a parallel SKOS mapping of Wordnet 3 and
> reference between them using rdfs:seeAlso/foaf:focus.
>
> 3. I define superclasses to group all reasonable interpretations of
> English language words. e.g. a "Fool" superclass that is the union of
> "Fool, as in incompetent person", "Fool, as in gullible person" and
> "Fool, as in jester".


Very interesting! I'm curious though: what's the application scenario that made you create this version?

And also, on this:

> There's a class:
>
>   <http://ontologi.es/WordNet/class/Fool>
>
> which acts as a superclass of all three senses of the word "fool". With
> "fool", the meanings of each sense are close enough that the distinction
> is not especially important, but with say "crack" this could refer to a
> small gap (a doorway that's open a crack), a break (a crack in a mirror),
> a sound (the crack of a whip) or crack cocaine - so distinguishing is more
> useful.


How do you make the distinction between the two situations--I mean, based on which elements in the Wordnet data?

Cheers,

Antoine

Received on Monday, 20 September 2010 11:45:38 UTC