- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 12:34:15 -0500
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Cc: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
At 11:58 AM 2001-02-01 -0500, Dan Brickley wrote: >On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Sean B. Palmer wrote: > >> > It's forwarded from teh RDF Interest Group. Since Sean is the >> > perpetrator, he has likely seen it already and can be clearer about >> > the goals, but the basic idea is dealing with spelling mistakes. >> >> Yes, but it's not valid RDF because DanBri's original letter wasn't in RDF. >> To get it to work, you'd have to convert an entire letter/page/+ to data, >> spell check it, and then convert it back - i.e. as part of a specialized >> spell-checker, not an RDF processor. >> Having said that, I do like the ideas from Charles/Lisa about using RDF for >> spell checking, a thesaurus, a dictionary, etc. DanBri's Wordnet stuff is a >> good indicator of what RDF can do, and it would be very easy indeed to >> modify it to become a thesaurus or a dictionary. Since Dan is now an >> official unlurker on the list, maybe he can chip in :-) >> > > >So WordNet is indeed a very interesting case. Unlike many Library >thesauri, the modelling has been done cleanly enough to project the >broader/narrower axis onto RDF's class hierarchy. This is because WordNet >makes distinctions such as: > >(excuse the ascii art rdf) > > fido -- type --> Dog -- subClassOf --> Mammal > >rather than the looser > > fido -- broaderTerm --> Dog --> broaderTerm --> Mammal > Does RDF, itself, recognize [ -- type --> ] -- subClassOf --> [ -- subClassOf --> ] ? What is the value of distinguishing [ -- type --> ] from [ -- subClassOf -->] ? Al >...which is often what you find in thesauri. This is great for WordNet, >since each word it defines becomes an RDF class, allowing us to write RDF >that looks quite intutiive as XML: > ><wn:Image> > <foaf:depicts> > <wn:Person foaf:name="..."> ...etc > > >In the DESIRE project and at ILRT we have also done a bit of work >reflecting classical thesauri into RDF, adopting the >broaderTerm/narrowerTerm modelling style. I recently >started to clean up these docs (there's an implementation too, pretty >simple over SQL based RDF store). > >Writeup (as yet uncirculated in present form...) > > <http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/01/rdf-thes/>http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/ 01/rdf-thes/ > RDF Thesaurus Specification (draft) > > Conceptual relationships for encoding thesauri, classification systems and > organised metadata collections and a proposal > for encoding a core set of thesaurus relationships using an RDF Schema > >Feedback / suggestions / applications welcomed. This is intended to be a >spec that gets deployed not one written up for academic purposes :) > >cheers > >Dan >
Received on Thursday, 1 February 2001 12:22:43 UTC