Re: [WN] comments on draft

At 23:25 +0100 26-11-2005, mark@few.vu.nl wrote:
>Hi,
>
>>  > Technically, a mapping could be done between the two semantics, but
>>  > the interpretation of all synsets as classes and of all hypernymOf
>>  > relations as subClassOf is untenable wrt intuition, because many
>>  > synsets refer to individuals,
>>
>>  ...that's a bug in the data, not the metamodel, one might argue.
>>
>
>We can offer the synsets-as-classes option for those who would like 
>to use it in
>that way, by describing that they can add
>
>- wn:Synset rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Class
>- wn:hyponymOf rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subClassOf
>
>to the version we have now. If this is desirable to promote is another point.
>(You also have more "useless" triples than when we'd make an additional
>conversion that converts it directly into a subclass hierarchy.)

This solution is simple and works to a certain extent, but the OWL 
version would go Full.

>  > > many hypernymOf relations refer to instanceOf (rd:type), and there are
>>  > other problems. This means that semantic porting needs data
>>  > reengineering, not just schema translation.
>
>BTW the new WN 2.1 version has a new "instance" relation; Paris is an instance
>of the synset "national capital" [1]. Time permitting this 
>information could be
>incorporated. But still it would need data reengineering to turn it into a
>"clean" ontology.

Yes, this is part of the improvements that have been planned in 
Princeton, and that go towards a formal semantics for synset 
interpretation. All the better I think.

Aldo

-- 



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
aldo.gangemi@istc.cnr.it
http://www.istc.cnr.it/createhtml.php?nbr=71

Received on Sunday, 27 November 2005 00:50:43 UTC