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

RE: [WN] Fwd: WordNet Namespace

From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:30:09 -0000
Message-ID: <DE62D3D0BDEF184FBB5089C7D387C37460D1B4@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Mark van Assem" <mark@cs.vu.nl>, "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>


> 
> 1- split WN-Full up into more convenient files

We also have to decide what is 'convenient'.  When I dereference wn:x
what would it be most useful to the application to get back.  You might
just return wx:x and its direct properties or you might return a bit
more.  I haven't looked at this in detail - just thought we ought to ask
the question.

Brian


> 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.
> 
> Mark.
> 
> 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 14:30:38 UTC

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