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

Re: Wordnet TF

From: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 04:19:17 +0200
Message-Id: <p0621020bbf88891e9b1f@[]>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org

Hi Jeremy,

At 17:27 +0100 20-10-2005, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>After having expressed a personal lack of enthusiasm for the Wordnet
>Task Force at Monday's telecon, I have discussed this situation with
>The task force has broadly the following jobs to do in phase 1:
>   1. define a mapping relating Wordnet and Owl and possibly SKOS

done for the WN datamodel (see recent development finalized by Mark van Assem)
re:SKOS, I hope to propose something at the F2F
I'd add that we are in touch with ISO people for LMF (Lexical Markup 
Framework), and I think it's an advantage to align our WN datamodel 
to LMF.

>   2. build consensus for that mapping amongst the several groups who
>have built their own

this is much more related to groups' volunteering ... I'm not going 
to provide a detailed analysis of differences in the short term, and 
that's possibly a waste of time ... the best our TF can do with the 
time remaining is to enforce the OWL datamodel, and ask those several 
groups to remark the difference of their datamodels, and we can 
eventually tale into account contributions that are more precise, or 
that can solve problems we can't solve

>   3. build support with the wordnet authors to adopt, distribute and
>maintain the mapping

we are in touch with Christiane as you probably know, but Princeton's 
people is even busier than us, then things don't happen quickly ... 
once we have the final datamodel and the web service, things might go 
faster anyway

>   4. possibly develop and deploy a service making Wordnet in RDF
>available on the web

this is definitely a task we should accomplish

>We believe that the Wordnet in RDF/Owl is important and would like to
>ensure that it is completed successfully, but we are aware that time for
>the WG is running out.  We suggest that we should take a realistic view
>of what can be accomplished within the lifetime of the WG.  Then two
>questions arise:
>   - is that a useful standalone contribution

if supported by a service, and with appropriate collaboration with WN 
developers and lexical resource standards (e.g. LMF), I think so

>   - how do we get the work completed after SWBP shuts down

the liaison between W3C and ISO that I proposed months ago would be a 
good chance to continue the work ... as a co-chair of next LREC 2006 
(Linguistic Resources and Evaluation, May, 2006, Genova, Italy) I'm 
going to propose a panel on wordnets and the Semantic Web

>A further point that came up in our discussion is some recent work 
>at the Univ. of Chile, inspired by some of the early drafts of the 
>Wordnet TF:
>This is an additional group that figures under point 2 above.

see above; btw Alvaro already contacted me, and if anyone there 
volunteers to revise the datamodel, propose an extension, or to 
provide a service, that's great


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
Received on Saturday, 29 October 2005 02:19:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:13 UTC