- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:18:33 +0100
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>, semantic-web@w3.org, public-lod@w3.org, Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>, Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:45:07 +0200 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > Very interesting! I'm curious though: what's the application scenario > that made you create this version? It makes it easy to insult people in RDF. <#you> a wordnet:Fool . #!!! More seriously, it's mostly just designed as a drop-in replacement for danbri's old Wordnet RDF stuff which went offline some time ago. Though this is based on a newer version of Wordnet and has SKOSey stuff thrown in as a bonus. > How do you make the distinction between the two situations--I mean, > based on which elements in the Wordnet data? *I* don't. If somebody decides that wordnet:Crack is accurate and specific enough for them, even though it's a class that covers sound effects, Class A drugs and fissures, then that's fine by me. If they want more specific classes, then those are provided too. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2010 23:19:06 UTC