RE: [Techniques] 3.1 and cascading dictionaries

Lisa Seaman wrote:
<blockquote>
A good base lexicon is wordnet at Princeton, It is huge, with a good
"consept based" orientation.

</blockquote>
 
Thanks, Lisa. WordNet is good for English. Do you know if there are
similarly good dictionaries for other languages? Is there a  list
somewhere?
 
Johnlist
 
 

"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director 
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin 
FAC 248C 
1 University Station G9600 
Austin, TX 78712 
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu 
Web  <http://www.ital.utexas.edu/>
http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Seeman [mailto:lisa@ubaccess.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 1:05 AM
To: John M Slatin; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Techniques] 3.1 and cascading dictionaries


>As gregg has noted, some of the success criteria for Guideline 3.1
assume the >availability of cascading dictionaries.  
 
I think you need lexicons with mapping to a concepts , not dictionary
per say.
A lexicon can have  one word in it.

Cascading lexicons is about overriding a default concept map within a
given scope. 
For that all you need is 
  - a relevant RDF (typically using OWL) ontology.
 - one  good concept oriented lexicon, with multiple entries per  word 
 
An old document that you marked up can also be referenced as containing
overriding material for a new document
 
you do not to use any cascading for 3.1 , but cascading is a way to
disambiguate text quickly, in other words, after one or two documents
you can have cascading in place that typifies how you use words.
 
A good base lexicon is wordnet at Princeton, It is huge, with a good
"consept based" orientation.
 
Default  rules for cascading are in the RDF techniques document.
 
what else, yes, the place to see good sites using concept mapping of
normal text will be the WAAC - or ask Andy Judson (on this list) 
 
 
Keep well
Lisa