- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:04:50 -0500
- To: "Mark van Assem" <mark@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: "SWBPD list" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
> From: Mark van Assem [mailto:mark@cs.vu.nl] > . . . There's one problem left: this approach would > give a URI clash for all the sub-types of wordsenses: > > http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn/wordsense/noun/ > > can refer to all NounWordSenses, or to the WordSenses with a > Word with > the lexical label "noun". Some kind of prefix could be introduced to > solve this e.g. "type-noun". I don't quite follow this. Do you need to provide URIs for identifying such things? It sounds like you are trying to ascribe meaning to that URI as an RDF node. I was assuming that URI would not be defined as an RDF node, because it is missing the sense number. I.e., http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn/wordsense/noun/noun/1/ would be defined as a particular word sense of the word "noun", but http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn/wordsense/noun/ would not be defined to mean anything (as an RDF node). If you need a URI for the set of all NounWordSenses, or for the set of all WordSenses pertaining to the word "noun", then completely different URIs could be minted for those purposes. Are they needed? > . . . > > Also, the language may need to be indicated, so > > perhaps something like the following would work better: > > > > http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn/wordsense/en/bank/ > > Why is that necessary? We already know that WN is in "en-US". URI > clashes with other WN's can be easily avoided by having > another base URI. My mistake. I saw the language being specified in the example SPARQL query, and assumed that WN was going to span languages. > > > 2. Starting from a particular URI that is an RDF node in a triple, > > look up related information. In this case, I don't think the > > application would (or should) know to deconstruct the URI > > in order to > > do a broader query, so I don't think the above mechanism would be > > appropriate for this usage. (But please correct me if you > > think I'm wrong.) > > Well, I think an application should not rely on this. But in practice > it would probably be programmed to do so if it gets the job done. I > think this is slippery terrain, but I can't decide either way. Well, if you're unsure, I'll be a little more forceful. :) Don't do it! It is not a practice that should be encouraged or endorsed. > . . . > OK, so the new proposal would be: > > http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn20/synset/bank/type-noun/1/ > http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn20/wordsense/type-noun/bank/1/ > http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn20/word/bank/ > http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn20/schema/participleOf/ Much better! But how about further simplifying the URIs to the following: > http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn20/synset/bank/noun/1/ > http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn20/word/bank/noun/1/ > http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn20/word/bank/ > http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn20/schema/participleOf/ This would provide even more consistency in the URIs. Note that by appending "noun/1/" to the end of the word URI, you get the URI for that particular word sense -- the keyword "wordsense" is not needed. > > [1]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wn-conversion.html > [2]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Mar/0076 David Booth
Received on Wednesday, 29 March 2006 22:07:09 UTC