RE: [WNET],[OEP] OntoWordNet. A new large OWL ontology

Here are a few thoughts about WordNet and ontologies gathered during
last week's Dagstuhl Workshop on: Machine Learning for the Semantic Web
The use of WN is more and more prevalent these days, especially among
those working with ontologies. 
However, WN is designed as a lexical resource, not an ontology; it was
never intended to be an ontology. 
Anyone who tries to use WN as an ontology quickly discovers that many of
the hyper/hyponymy links are not proper taxonomic links at all.  This
raises the question as to whether and when WN should be used as an
ontology at all.
If you try to use a knife as a can-opener - beware. It sort of works
kinda, but you need to be careful.
I dont have an opinion on this, but thought I'd report on these views
that I learned of.
It would be useful to have something to say on this point in the TF

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Aldo Gangemi [] 
	Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 12:35 AM
	Cc: Uschold, Michael F;;;;;;;;;;
	Subject: [WNET],[OEP] OntoWordNet. A new large OWL ontology
	Hi all,

	second message for new [WNET] files.

	This message is about a new version of the WordNet datamodel
that we started modelling months ago. First versions were encoded by
Guus Schreiber and Brian McBride. This version (3) has been enlarged,
commented, and checked after the original WordNet specifications by me.
It's downloadable from:
Extensive documentation from original sources, and about the work
carried out, is contained in the OWL file.



	Aldo Gangemi
	Research Scientist
	Laboratory for Applied Ontology
	Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technology
	National Research Council (ISTC-CNR)
	Via Nomentana 56, 00161, Roma, Italy
	Tel: +390644161535
	Fax: +390644161513
	!!! please don't use the old
	address, because it is under spam attack

Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 18:05:20 UTC