- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:52:30 +0100
- To: "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
McBride, Brian wrote: > Are you thinking in terms of adegree of precision that Wordnet does not > provide? Most certainly ... I liked your phlogiston example. However, I think that given the imprecision - stability is relative. If we have a sense ID x which is related to certain words and phrases in version N, and in version N+1 there is a desire to have a new sense which is a minor change to the sense indicated by x, I think it will be an *engineering* decision as to whether that change is sufficiently big to require a new sense ID y, or whether sense stability is not violated by *changing* the sense and reusing sense ID x. Continuing with your physics case - the concept atom gets revised relatively frequently - and in many ways the older conceptualization of 'atom' ceases to be available - but whether this requires a new sense ID or not is open to debate in my view. (Physicists have got by without needing to invent a new word, although I guess they might qualify 'atom' if they wish to talk about an atom given a particularly physical theory) So, I see sense stability rather like API stability ... as you rev some software you want the deprecated API calls to still work, but there are corner cases and you accept that, and things do get obsoleted. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 22 July 2004 10:53:26 UTC