- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:50:48 +0200
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- CC: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>, semantic-web@w3.org, public-lod@w3.org, Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>, Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
On 9/22/10 1:18 AM, Toby Inkster wrote: > On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:45:07 +0200 > Antoine Isaac<aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > >> Very interesting! I'm curious though: what's the application scenario >> that made you create this version? > > It makes it easy to insult people in RDF. > > <#you> a wordnet:Fool . #!!! > > More seriously, it's mostly just designed as a drop-in replacement for > danbri's old Wordnet RDF stuff which went offline some time ago. Though > this is based on a newer version of Wordnet and has SKOSey stuff thrown > in as a bonus. > >> How do you make the distinction between the two situations--I mean, >> based on which elements in the Wordnet data? > > *I* don't. > > If somebody decides that wordnet:Crack is accurate and specific enough > for them, even though it's a class that covers sound effects, Class A > drugs and fissures, then that's fine by me. If they want more specific > classes, then those are provided too. > Ah, ok, my misunderstanding. I thought that you had created http://ontologi.es/WordNet/data/Fool because all fool synsets were very similar, and not http://ontologi.es/WordNet/data/Crack because there would be too different meanings below that one. But now that I've seen that http://ontologi.es/WordNet/data/Crack in fact exists, I infer that you've created them for all these possible groups of synsets. Thanks, Antoine
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2010 15:51:19 UTC