W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: WordNet Task Force - work outline

From: Aldo Gangemi <a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:53:34 +0000
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <1080737614.406abf4eef53b@imp.rm.cnr.it>

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 http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/City: 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 

>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).


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"?


Aldo Gangemi
Research Scientist
Laboratory for Applied Ontology
Via Nomentana 56, Rome, Italy

This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2004 10:49:33 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 31 March 2004 10:49:36 EST