Re: WordNet Task Force - work outline

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Aldo Gangemi wrote:

> At 11:48 +0100 31-03-2004, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> >More on the content of your message about http://..../City
> >Aldo Gangemi wrote:
> >>But also look at the file at City is a
> >>class introduced with all its taxonomic branch (poor practice: if each class
> >>is introduced with all its superclasses, the ontology results unnecessary
> >>long),
> >I am less than convinced - for a very big, or infinite ontology, this is a
> >*necesary* practice (good or bad) since otherwise any use of the ontology
> >requires a huge (possibly infinite) download.
> >I am currently working on an ontology for language tags, based on RFC
> >3066bis, which is infinite - I was thinking of using a similar approach to
> >the one above to give finite views of relevant parts of the ontology, so that
> >any use could be achieved by downloading all the URLs constructed with
> >language tags actually present in your data.
> >If all you want to know about is City then the City download is a good one,
> >if you want to know about more than that, maybe you need the full download
> >(wherever that is).
> >Jeremy

I'd just like to reiteratate how useful this is. I use Dan Brickley's
version of wordnet for image annotations, and it just pulls down the
class you ask for and its subclasses as you say:

I use a very lightweight annotation tool, so any more information than
this would not be useful. No suggestions on 'views files' creators
though (perhaps this is a usecase for the Data Access Working Group?)


> Got the point, it is an efficiency issue. Is there any tool to convert an OWL
> (or RDF) ontology into a set of "views files", possibly based on customizable
> properties (e.g., "give me only a superclass specification view", or "give me
> subclasses and related classes specification view"?
> Thanks
> Aldo
> --
> Aldo Gangemi
> Research Scientist
> Laboratory for Applied Ontology
> Via Nomentana 56, Rome, Italy
> +39.06.86090249
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP:

Received on Thursday, 1 April 2004 04:19:30 UTC