Re: [WNET] new data and schema files

Hi Ralph,

Thanks for spotting these errors. I made some mistakes in my last cvs 
commit and forgot to correct the filenames in the Draft [1]. Below I 
state what I changed.

I will rerun my script, do a new cvs commuit tonight, and check the 
schemas again so that everything is in order tomorrow morning.

> Mark, I see several new .rdf files in wn20/rdf/ that have old
> versions in wn20/rdf/full/ -- namely:

I accidentally placed the new versions in wn20/rdf/

I have deleted them again from cvs.

> Also, should the new wordnet-attributeof.rdf replace the old
> wordnet-attribute.rdf ? [1] cites "wordnet-attribute" (the old name).

It's the other way around. wordnet-attribute is the correct name. I 
forgot to update [1] when I changed the names in the prolog program...
I've corrected and committed [1].

> And does the new wordnet-hypernym.rdf replace wordnet-hyponym.rdf?
> [1] cites "wordnet-hyponym".

hypernym is the old one. I removed it from cvs.

> actual			cited in [1]
> 
> wordnet-synset		wordnet-synsets
> wordnet-senselabels	wordnet-senselabel	(in basic/)

wordnet-synset is the correct filename, wordnet-senselabels is correct 
(last one was an error in the conversion program, corrected that too).

> 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.

I see it like this: all the files together form the "complete" WordNet. 
The Full and Basic are two (different) partitions. Notice that in the 
"complete" WordNet the senseLabels are actually redundant.

I think we should provide only the Full version online. Those who want 
the labels can get them by additional queries for the appropriate Words 
and their lexicalForms.

> And schemas/wnbasic.rdfs does not actually declare the
> senseLabel property, despite the text in its comments.

I found some other errors; some props still use xsd:string instead of 
rdfs:Literal.

I am guessing I forgot to do a final commit somewhere (have been working 
on three different computers lately). Will correct tonight.

> I do think that senseLabel should be added somewhere in Figure 2.

That might suggest to Full users (who are the target of that part of the 
document) that there are senseLabels in Full. I'd rather present Full in 
the main doc and present the Basic in the separate section that explains 
their differences.

Thanks again,
Mark.

-- 
  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
        markREMOVE@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~mark

Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2006 13:00:22 UTC