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

[WNET] RE: WordNet Conversion

From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:39:28 +0100
Message-ID: <DE62D3D0BDEF184FBB5089C7D387C37425DBBB@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:12 UTC