- From: Benjamin Nguyen <Benjamin.Nguyen@inria.fr>
- Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:47:00 +0200
- To: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
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