Re: [WN] Review of Feb draft

Selon Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>:

> 
> 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.

Sounds fine.

> 
> 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.

Agreed.

> 
> 
> > 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.

I understand the purpose of not overloading too much the main document, I feel
that all appendices are not equal in importance. I do think that a third part
of the document (as stated below) would give a more logical flow to it, but if
most prefer to put the technical aspects in the appendix I'll live with it.


> 
> > 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?

I would prefer the order I stated, but merging the sections into subsections +
giving a simple title would be sufficient.

> 
> > 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.

OK but merge.

> 
> > 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].

Noted.

> 
> > 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 
> non-changes?

In closing : I can live with the proposed changes although I find it a pity to
leave some of the technical stuff in the appendices.

Kind regards,

BN

> 
> With regards,
> Mark.
> 
> ----
> 
> [1]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wn-conversion.html
> [2]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Mar/0076
> [3]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0088
> [4]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0092.html
> 
> -- 
>   Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
>         markREMOVE@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark
> 
> 




----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Received on Monday, 27 March 2006 14:47:07 UTC