On 23/2/09 18:53, David Baxter wrote:
Hi all,
We at Cycorp have been publishing owl:sameAs links from our OpenCyc
concepts to WordNet synsets, e.g.
<http://sw.opencyc.org/2008/06/10/concept/en/India> owl:sameAs
<http://www.w3.org/2006/03/wn/wn20/instances/synset-India-noun-1>
We've done so with the idea that the WordNet synset represents the same
concept as the OpenCyc term (i.e. the South Asian country in this case),
and contains further relevant information that complements what is
available in OpenCyc, e.g.
"is a member of OPEC" (OK, this one's of dubious value, but it might be
useful if it were true)
"is a member of the British Commonwealth"
"is a part of Asia"
However, WordNet also contains assertions about the "India" synset that
seem strange to assert about the country, e.g.
"is an instance of NounSynset"
"contains WordSense 'Republic of India 1'"
We'd like to know what the general feeling in the LOD community is about
these links. Is there any precedent or consensus about the best way to
link from ontologies such as OpenCyc's to WordNet? Is anyone finding
these links useful and/or harmful?
Thanks for any input.
This particular representation of Wordnet isn't structured as an
ontology describing the world at large. Instead, it the domain of the
ontology is natural language (basically English plus similar). So an
owl:sameAs is probably not what you're wanting. Even statements about
class membership are a bit awkward given this difference in scope.
FWIW I used to have a more class-centric representation of Wordnet's "is
a kind of" hierarchy on xmlns.com, but this is currently offline, and
needs updating to use the cleaner Wordnet 2.x work.
Having these associations is still great, so thanks for all the work
putting this together. I'd suggest making up a custom relationship name
for now to link from a class to a related Wordnet synset.
cheers,
Dan
--
http://danbri.org/
