- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 15:03:37 -0400
- To: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Mark, I see several new .rdf files in wn20/rdf/ that have old versions in wn20/rdf/full/ -- namely: wordnet-antonym.rdf wordnet-derivationallyrelated.rdf wordnet-participle.rdf (vs. full/participleof.rdf) wordnet-pertainsto.rdf wordnet-seealso.rdf Were these just errors in your file names? In each case the editor's draft [1] (22 May revision) still refers to those files as living in wn20/rdf/full/. Also, should the new wordnet-attributeof.rdf replace the old wordnet-attribute.rdf ? [1] cites "wordnet-attribute" (the old name). And does the new wordnet-hypernym.rdf replace wordnet-hyponym.rdf? [1] cites "wordnet-hyponym". (I see that the new file declares both hypernyms and hyponyms while the old one only declared hyponyms.) And while I'm at it, I see these other mismatches between [1] and the actual file names: actual cited in [1] wordnet-synset wordnet-synsets wordnet-senselabels wordnet-senselabel (in basic/) and there's a typo in the Basic senseLabels link; the draft currently links to full/ whereas it clearly means to have been basic/. However, I wonder if the senseLabel statements should be included in the CBDs for Full as well? (I did not include them on my first pass). One interpretation of [1] is that Full contains all of the files listed, including senseLabels. And schemas/wnbasic.rdfs does not actually declare the senseLabel property, despite the text in its comments. (I don't actually think it makes sense to have two schema files, but I'm not going to suggest that we change that for this draft -- let's get some practical experience with the data first.) I do think that senseLabel should be added somewhere in Figure 2. [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wn-conversion.html#basicfull $Id: wn-conversion-20062304.html,v 1.8 2006/05/22 15:24:01 mvanasse Exp $
Received on Tuesday, 23 May 2006 19:04:56 UTC