- From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:30:44 -0000
- To: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Mike, > -----Original Message----- > From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Uschold, Michael F > Sent: 03 February 2005 22:27 > To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org > Subject: [WNET] WOrdnet Ontology > > > I was googled on: [wordnet "owl lite"] and got to the Wordnet > TaskForce > page: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wordnet-sw-20040713.html > > My specific goal was to find out if wordnet171.owl was in Owl > Lite or -DL or -Full. > > There already is at least one, and possible more WN > ontologies in OWL already,e.g. the one at the knOWLer site. > > What is the rationale for the TF to produce another WN > ontology in OWL. That's a good question. I don't have the details swapped in, but hp had some implementation experience that knOWLer had not included a something(s) that HP needed. I will need to lookup the details which I can't do right now, but I hope to get something to the list soonish. Brian
Received on Friday, 4 February 2005 15:31:16 UTC