RE: [WN] Fwd: WordNet Namespace

Hi All,

Regarding the second issue: I think it's less of a problem. Once you agree
on the actual representation of WordNet, you can make it available either as
a single file or a set of files, e.g. one for each resource, containing only
the triples where that resource appears. 

The WordNet server can then either serve these static files or run a RESTful
Web Service in the background that queries the ontology dynamically.

In any case as Jeremy says what you want are slash URIs.

Cheers,
Peter


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Jacco van Ossenbruggen
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1:05 PM
> To: Jeremy Carroll
> Cc: Aldo Gangemi; public-swbp-wg@w3.org; schreiber@cs.vu.nl;
> mark@cs.vu.nl; Benjamin.Nguyen@inria.fr
> Subject: Re: [WN] Fwd: WordNet Namespace
> 
> 
> Mark, Aldo,
> 
> Based on the reply of Peter, Jeremy and my previous postings, there are
> two different size-related issues.
> I was only talking about the size of the total RDF if it is to be loaded
> into a single triple store.  I think this problem is mainly an editorial
> one: the draft should contain some argument along the lines of  "yes, it
> is bigger than the other conversions but a) it is complete and b) it
> uses URIs for word senses which make them first class citizens wich is
> important because ...."
> 
> The second size-related issue is the one brought up by Jeremy and
> relates to the size of the chunk of data that is returned by the
> Princeton webserver if one of the URIs is resolved. This is directly
> related to the hash vs slash URI discussion (see Jeremy's post), but
> also to the question of how you want Princeton to map the different RDF
> files into the URI namespace you propose.  Both are currently not
> discussed in the document (editorial) but I think their is also a
> technical issue here: the way the files are currently split up, even
> with Alistair's apache cookbook it is not trivial to make sure that
> resolving http://wordnet.princeton.edu/rdf/entity actually returns all
> triples concerning that resource (and only those triples, not the >1M
> other triples).
> 
> Jacco
> 
> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> > Let's suppose we have 150MB of data.
> >
> > If we have http://wordnet.princeton.edu/rdf#entity then we have one
> > file of 150MB. If we want to look up this URI, we have to download
> > 150MB from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/rdf and then parse it and find
> > the triples concerning http://wordnet.princeton.edu/rdf#entity
> >
> > If we have http://wordnet.princeton.edu/rdf/entity then we may have
> > say 50,000 files each of 4KB (notice this is somewhat more in total,
> > say 200MB).
> >
> > If we want to lookup http://wordnet.princeton.edu/rdf/entity then we
> > download 4KB.
> >
> > The latter is much more practical.
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2005 13:10:19 UTC