W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > December 2005

RE: [WN] Fwd: WordNet Namespace

From: Peter Mika <pmika@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:56:16 +0100
To: "'Mark van Assem'" <mark@cs.vu.nl>, "'Jacco van Ossenbruggen'" <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>
Cc: "'Aldo Gangemi'" <aldo.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <Benjamin.Nguyen@inria.fr>
Message-Id: <20051213135616.35B803662B@smtp5.wanadoo.nl>

Hi All,

Reflecting on a very small part of this discussion (that caught my eye):

> One point where we might gain a lot (reduce size) is by representing
> word(senses) directly as labels on synsets. But then you lose the
> ability to annotate with WordSenses. So my concrete question is: is it
> desirable to lose this ability in trade for a size reduction?

I think this would seriously impair the main use case of WordNet in the SW,
namely sense disambiguation as a step in ontology mapping.

Cheers,
Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Mark van Assem
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 1:15 PM
> To: Jacco van Ossenbruggen
> Cc: Aldo Gangemi; public-swbp-wg@w3.org; schreiber@cs.vu.nl;
> jjc@hpl.hp.com; Benjamin.Nguyen@inria.fr
> Subject: Re: [WN] Fwd: WordNet Namespace
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Jacco,
> 
> > rdf files themselves and I think the sheer size is worthwhile
> > discussing.  The various files add now up to over 150MB uncompressed
> > RDF/XML, when loaded in SWI-Prolog it gives a memory footprint of over
> > 300MB.
> > I think it is usefull to
> > - at least mention the footprint so users are warned
> > - compare the footprint to the other conversions, explain the difference
> > and argue what the benefits are
> 
> Ok, this can be done.
> 
> > - think about the possibillity for a lean and mean version.
> 
> The "convenience" requirement might be satisfied better by (a)
> removing the inverses like you and Jan argued before; and (b) separate
> the files into e.g. separate ones for the noun and verb hierarchies.
> Maybe this already gives enough reduction?
> 
> Something that I would like your input for is the question what the
> relation between size and convenience is. It is not very fair to
> compare this conversion to e.g. one that does not have all hierarchies
> or does not have all relationships. Note that I already put each
> relation in a separate file, so that's configurable and allows for a
> more fair size comparison.
> 
> > If most users end up ingnoring this version because other versions are
> > so much smaller, this would be in strong conflict with the second "it
> > should be convenient to work with" requirement mentioned in [1].
> 
> That is an important problem. But then we need some way of telling
> what is convenient and what is not.
> 
> One point where we might gain a lot (reduce size) is by representing
> word(senses) directly as labels on synsets. But then you lose the
> ability to annotate with WordSenses. So my concrete question is: is it
> desirable to lose this ability in trade for a size reduction?
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark.
> 
> --
>   Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
>         markREMOVE@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2005 13:56:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 27 January 2023 01:58:25 UTC