- From: Jeen Broekstra <jeen@aduna.biz>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 10:19:04 +0200
- To: Alvaro Graves <agraves@dcc.uchile.cl>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
Alvaro Graves wrote: > > Hi, my name is Alvaro Graves, I'm working on my MS in the University of > Chile. My thesis consists in a RDF Representation of WordNet and to > create some application over it. > > Currently I have parsed almost the entire wordnet 2.0 relations to RDF. > The schema I created was based in one you had in > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wordnet-sw-20040713.html > > I would appreciate a lot if you could check my schema and files of > wordnet and give me your comments. > > The URI is http://www.dcc.uchile.cl/~agraves/wordnet/index.html First of all: nice effort! I'll have a closer look at it later, but I just noticed one thing right off that you might want to change. In your schema, you are defining the hyponym property with multiple domains (VerbSynSet and NounSynSet). I think this is not really a good idea: multiple domains/ranges are defined as an intersection in RDFS. The result would therefore be that every concept that has a hyponym property would be classified as _both_ a VerbSynSet and a NounSynSet. Two easy solutions: 1. use a single domain that is the lowest common ancestor of the two classes, for example 'SynSet'. 2. create domain-specific subproperties. I tend to favor the first option because introducing a lot of subproperties can clutter up your schema. Jeen -- Jeen Broekstra Aduna BV Knowledge Engineer Julianaplein 14b, 3817 CS Amersfoort http://aduna.biz The Netherlands tel. +31 33 46599877
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2005 08:16:38 UTC