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

Re: [WN] Fwd: WordNet Namespace

From: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:18:10 +0100
Message-ID: <43A17B22.1020500@cs.vu.nl>
To: Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>
CC: Peter Mika <pmika@cs.vu.nl>, 'Jeremy Carroll' <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, 'Aldo Gangemi' <aldo.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, schreiber@cs.vu.nl, Benjamin.Nguyen@inria.fr

Hi all,

Before I comment I shortly summarize the discussion on the files:

1- split WN-Full up into more convenient files
2- make a WN-Light
3- serve slash uris

1) This is not a problem, will do so. Or, if we want slash URIs, this 
is not necessary because every resource becomes one file?

2) I can create a separate file that attaches all WordSenses/Words as 
labels to their Synsets. The Synset file plus this new file then 
constitutes a WN-Light. You loose (a) Word and WordSense URI; and (b) 
the ability to use the relationships that are between WordSenses 
instead of between Synsets (pertainsTo, participleOf, seeAlso, antonym).

Peter Mika commented that taking out the WordSense-as-Class in favour 
of WordSenses-as-Labels seriously impairs an important use of WN, 
namely sense disambiguation. I don't know how WN is exactly used for 
sense disambiguation, but I can imagine this situation:

- program finds relevant word in a text
- program searches Synsets with matching labels
- program chooses between the returned Synsets
- program annotates the word in the text with the WN Synset URI.

For this approach WN-Light is fine. Am I missing something or would 
WN-Light as I propose above be a good idea?

3) I don't think we can ask Princeton to do something that is more 
complex than serving file(s) at a particular location (or can we, 
Aldo?). Is the slash solution practical enough?

If we do choose to use hash URIs, then should we have different 
namespaces for the different files? This also reduces the size of a 
download when you query for a WN URI.


Jacco van Ossenbruggen wrote:
> Peter Mika wrote:
>> 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.  
> I agree, but you still need to define exactly what triples are returned 
> for each type of URI.
> So, what subgraph does resolving http://wordnet.princeton.edu/rdf/entity 
> actually return?
> And what about http://wordnet.princeton.edu/rdf/antonym?
>> 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 theory, yes, but in practice I doubt that Princeton is going to 
> develop such a service.
>> In any case as Jeremy says what you want are slash URIs.
> I agree.
> Jacco

  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
        markREMOVE@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2005 14:22:51 UTC

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