- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:58:03 -0500 (EST)
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Yes. The nice thing is that we can use systems such as WordNet (there are others) in RDF to provide some base functionality, and then sub-class for added specificity. Or, to create vocabularies independently of WordNet and similar systems but to use them after the fact by writing the RDF that maps bits of WordNet etc into our own type hierarchies. So we get the 'partial understanding' thing whereby a processor familar with 'WordNet:BitMap' but not with 'IMAGE:BitMap' can at least have a rough idea of the kind of object an 'IMAGE:BitMap' must be. Dan On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Raphael Malyankar wrote: > This is a Wordnet issue, of course. I have encountered similar issues > in looking for nautical terms in Wordnet. The Wordnet corpus doesn't > contain many domain-specialized senses. providing for specifying context > (more than one context?) might (will?) be necessary in the long run. > > -- > Raphael Malyankar > rmm@seine.eas.asu.edu > > > ----- Begin Included Message ----- > > From: Richard Humpleman - SISA <richardh@sisa.samsung.com> > Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 17:23:50 -0800 > > . . . > > I tried the above and find a very little useful association between eg: > -tv and television > -televison tube (or crt) and television (or tv) > -software and fortran > > I was expecting better eg: > -vcr and tv to show as related electronic devices or appliances > -television tube to show as an electronic part of the television > -fortran to be under software > -tv an alternative name for television (other than in comments) > > Maybe I was expecting too much? > Richard Humpleman, > SISA, Samsung Electronics, > San Jose, CA. > > > ----- End Included Message ----- >
Received on Friday, 10 December 1999 17:58:04 UTC