- From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:39:28 +0100
- To: "Mark van Assem" <mark@cs.vu.nl>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Mark, I have had a look over this, though not yet in any real detail. I liked the suggestion about the relationship to SKOS. I have a couple of issues to mention, but bear in mind, I'm reloading old context from a while back - so keep your nonsense detectors turned on. 1. How complex a processor do we need to be able to use the resulting Wordnet representation? I think there are use cases where what is important is: 1. the ability to name words and wordsenses 2. the ability to navigate the Wordnet database - e.g. find synonyms etc This can be accomplished without using Owl at all. Have we other requirements that do indicate a need for Owl? I'm wondering if we should invoke the KISS principal. Folks shouldn't need to understand Owl or require an Owl processor to be able to use the resulting dataset for the purposes above. 2. Naming of things There are a couple of things here. With the TAG's guidance on http-range-14, I presume that we are not free to use '/' characters in URIs to name abstract things, provided we do an indirect. This allows us to consult a word in a Wordnet server without downloading all of Wordnet. I also wonder about using '?' to separate the root of the URI from the concept id part. This would avoid the redirect, but I've sneaking suspicion I've forgotten why that is a bad idea. I also wondered about using synset id's which change from version to version of wordnet. 3. Do we know what other Wordnet's in RDF are out there and how they differ? That's it till I reload some more context. Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark van Assem > Sent: 08 August 2005 14:44 > To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org > Subject: WordNet Conversion > > > > Hi, > > I'm Mark van Assem, a PhD student of Guus Schreiber doing > work on thesauri and cultural heritage. > > Guus asked me to see if I could convert WordNet (Prolog > version) based on the work of the SWBP WN task force, and > suggested to mail the results to this list for > review/comments/further processing. > > The work I did is based on a merger of the OWL schema Aldo > Gangemi prepared and the (public) discussions of the TF (all > referred to in the documentation). It concerns a > straightforward conversion to this schema, e.g. it does not > identify parts of WN that can be seen as a class hierarchy etcetera. > > Below I describe the files I prepared. My apologies for any > errors you may find; I just finished the conversion and did > not do a lot in the way yet of detecting errors in the > result, besides browsing it in Triple20. > > Kind regards, > Mark. > > ______________________________________________________________ > __________ > > > Please find the following at http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark/wn/ > > - convertwn.pl (conversion program with documentation on usage in the > comments) > > - wordnet_rationale_mark.txt (explanation of my choices & > background info including refs to where I got the info) > > - wordnet_rationale_mark.html (quickly hacked html version of previous > file) > > - wordnet_datamodel_Mark.owl (slightly adapted version of > Aldo Gangemi's wordnet_datamodel.owl - see the rationale) > > - directory 'src' (contains the WN Prolog 2.0 src files) > - directory 'owl' (output of running convertwn.pl) > > Instructions on how you can repeat the conversion can be > found in convertwn.pl. > > > -- > Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam > mark@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark > >
Received on Tuesday, 13 September 2005 14:42:23 UTC