W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > March 2006

Re: [WN] Review of Feb draft

From: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:33:15 +0200
Message-ID: <4427E99B.9020109@cs.vu.nl>
To: Benjamin.Nguyen@inria.fr, SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Dear Benjamin,

First of all, thank you for your review on [1]. Comments follow below.

> 3- Adressed, butthe conversion process still has some 'to do's'.

The ones that we can resolve will be before the next version. However,
some of the issues require discussion with Princeton. We would like to
come to them with a document that is largely approved in our
community before we approach Princeton.

A related point is that for some to do's we would like the feedback of
the community, so they should actually remain in the document. I will
clearly indicate in the next version the issues/to do's for which we
have not received feedback yet, so that they may be discussed in a
wider audience. I also understand that a not-too-large set of ToDo's
in a document are allowed even for First WD status.

> 4- Section 4, now appendix F,has seen the language paragraph lengthened, 
> but has not adresse my comments on why the choices made my the editors are 
> better that previous ones, the comments are purely descriptive, and I find 
> that is not enough (for instance Chile university paragraph).

We will extend this part, thanks for making this clear.

> 6- I still cast reserves on the fact that the document is NOT in 
> publishable state, due to loose ends.

I think there are these categories of ToDo's in this document:

- feedback todo's (the princeton issues)
- cannot decide yet todo's (e.g. finding a host for the conversion
[ToDO in Sec1, @@URIs])
- todo's surrounding details of the data conversion itself (e.g.
handling diacritics)
- other todo's (missing references, SKOS section, inverses in Appendix D)

In my opinion the only category of todo's that need attention before
publication as First WD are the last two (of course I am talking about
the todo's only, not about other content suggestions the reviewers
make). I will change the current version to remove as much "todo"
statements from the running text to the "issues" list in Appendix H so
the difference between the two categories of todo's is more clear.

> 7- Appendix D is the 'heart' of the document, it should be in the core of 
> the document, not the appendix !

Changing this would conflict with adaptations we made in response to
comments of Brian McBride (excuse me for excluding a reference, it was
in a telecon which I have not been able to find in the archives). Like
we state in the Guide to the Reader, we would like the document to be
a convenient starting point for actual users. I.e. the target audience
of the first sections is not own community, which would like to verify
if the conversion was done in a correct and complete way. We would
like to use the Appendices for that audience/purpose and keep the
actual document itself as straightforward as possible.

> 8- Restructure with less sections and more subsections. A proposition 

This is reasonable, as Jacco van Ossenbruggen also found the small
sections a hard read.

> would be : 1- Introduction 2- Using WN with RDF/OWL (actual sections 3/4/2 
> _in this order_) 3- Conversion methodology & details (appendix A, appendix 

A proposal which keeps in line with the previously stated intention
would be to merge 2/3/4 into one section, in that order. However,
would that give the required readability? Would changing the titles of
the sections into subsection titles really make things more clear?
Would you have additional suggestions on improving readability?

> D) 4- Open issues regarding conversion (rewrite appendix H); Section 5 and 
> 7 can be put in appendix, section 6 must be put in appendix. 

Sects. 5 and 7 explain how to query WN and the different available
versions. These seem important issues to the average user, so putting
these into appendices would diminish their visibility.

> 9- There are problems in the URIs given, most examples have spaces 
> between some - symbols, and some do not.

Will fix, thanks for noticing. BTW the URI proposal will change in
response to comments from Kjetill [2].

> 10- As of today, the URIs starting with http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn20/ 
> are 404. Are these examples correct, and am I simply unlucky ?

No, you are correct. This is because it is a proposal URI [3,4]. As
soon as we have clear how and what we would like to host at Princeton,
we may contact them to put our decisions into effect. However, I would
like to prevent bothering them from putting online something until we
have decided the definitive RDF and how to serve it. I will make this
clear in the next version of the document.

> 11- Appendix D : all properties are not defined. For instance, 
> wn:meronymOf 

Thanks for spotting this. Will add the superproperties we introduced
also in that Appendix.

> 12- It seems in WN that all symmetric relations appear twice.

Yes, that is correctly spotted. This is an error in the data Jacco
already noticed. I will correct in the coming version.

> 13- I assume the URL in appendix G : http://wordnet.princeton.ude/wn/bank/ 
> should read http://wordnet.princeton.ude/wn/word-bank/

You are absolutely right. Will correct.

In closing, can you indicate whether you agree (or can live) with 
answers that we have provided above and the corresponding changes and 

With regards,



  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
        markREMOVE@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
Received on Monday, 27 March 2006 13:33:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:18 UTC