Re: Incorrect lang tags Re: Princeton WordNet RDF

begin with, but going forward, it would be worth the effort to fix inconsistancies. RDF can be quite a mess without some forethought. --Gannon On Wed, 4/16/14, Bernard Vatant wrote: Subject: Incorrect lang tags Re: Princeton WordNet RDF To: "

Re: Princeton WordNet RDF

On 4/16/14 5:14 PM, Luca Matteis wrote: Great job! I want to stress that content-negotiation support for all types is certainly *not* a requirement for a linked data set. The syntax support or the extra header information being proposed by several members would certainly make the data nicer, as

Incorrect lang tags Re: Princeton WordNet RDF

John Looking at the data in more details, it appears that the lang tags are using systematically ISO 639-2 codes (3 letters-code), even when the ISO 639-1 exists and should be used, as per *BCP 47 *. See e.g., http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/rdfval?URI=http%3A%2F

Re: Princeton WordNet RDF

Great job! I want to stress that content-negotiation support for all types is certainly *not* a requirement for a linked data set. The syntax support or the extra header information being proposed by several members would certainly make the data nicer, as probably other dozen of other things would

Re: Princeton WordNet RDF

On 4/16/14 12:13 PM, David Booth wrote: As an aside, whenever it is convenient to do so, I would strongly suggest migrating from RDF/XML to Turtle as the default published RDF format, for better public relations and human readability. Historically, RDF/XML has caused quite a lot of misunderstan

Re: Princeton WordNet RDF

John, Great job! Re: This version, based on the current development of the WordNet project, >intends to be a nucleus for the Linguistic Linked Open Data cloud and the global >WordNet projects. The data are accessible in five formats (HTML+RDFa, RDF/XML, >Turtle, N-Triples and JSON-LD) as well

Re: Princeton WordNet RDF

As an aside, whenever it is convenient to do so, I would strongly suggest migrating from RDF/XML to Turtle as the default published RDF format, for better public relations and human readability. Historically, RDF/XML has caused quite a lot of misunderstanding of RDF among software developers wh

Re: Princeton WordNet RDF

Hi, thanks - well done! You could make it a little better by deploying the ontology at http://wordnet-rdf.princeton.edu/ontology according to current best practices (HTML for humans, RDF in various syntaxes for machines). Currently, only RDF/XML is served, even if you explicitly request

Re: Princeton WordNet RDF

Indeed! Well done, and deserves a matching good ontology on top of the cake :) Beyond recipes pointed by Martin, for inclusion in LOV it lacks a good old owl:Ontology element with minimal metadata, as described in http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/Recommendations_Vocabulary_Design.pdf. Best regards

Princeton WordNet RDF

Princeton University in collaboration with the Cognitive Interaction Technology Excellence Center of Bielefeld University are proud to announce the first RDF version of WordNet 3.1, now available at: http://wordnet-rdf.princeton.edu/ This version, based on the current development of the WordNet

Re: WordNet RDF

On Sep 9, 2010, at 15:30 , Ian Davis wrote: There is a SPARQL'able version of Wordnet 3.0 available via the Talis Platform: http://api.talis.com/stores/wordnet This is based on the RDF conversion at http://semanticweb.cs.vu.nl/lod/wn30/ Ian, Thanks for hosting a SPARQL endpoint! I adde

Re: WordNet RDF

ool . #!!! 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 si

Re: WordNet RDF

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

Re: WordNet RDF

On 10-09-20 23:11, Vasiliy Faronov wrote: > > Have you looked at the GOLD ontology[1]? > > [1] http://linguistics-ontology.org/gold/ No, somehow I had missed that. It looks like just the thing! (could benefit from some examples though, sample sentences and how they would be represented with GOLD

Re: WordNet RDF

Hi William, > One vocabulary that I missed while doing this is something > to represent parts of speech and grammatical syntax in > natural language. I invented something ad-hoc but it might > be useful to have a more completely thought out way to do > this. Have you looked at the GOLD ontology[1

Re: WordNet RDF

On 10-09-20 12:45, Antoine Isaac wrote: > Very interesting! I'm curious though: what's the application scenario > that made you create this version? (hopefully this is closely enough related that my reply below isn't a non-sequitur) I worked on a toy NLP bot that might expose some "real" uses for

Re: WordNet RDF

On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 14:30:52 +0100 Ian Davis wrote: This is based on the RDF conversion at http://semanticweb.cs.vu.nl/lod/wn30/ How similar is your work to this version? They're similar in that they're both based on Wordnet 3. There are some key differences though: 1. The vu.nl version in

Re: WordNet RDF

On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 14:30:52 +0100 Ian Davis wrote: > This is based on the RDF conversion at > http://semanticweb.cs.vu.nl/lod/wn30/ > > How similar is your work to this version? They're similar in that they're both based on Wordnet 3. There are some key differences though: 1. The vu.nl version

Re: WordNet RDF

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Toby Inkster wrote: > Dear all, > > I've created a think RDF wrapper around the WordNet 3.0 database (nouns > only). For example: > >  http://ontologi.es/WordNet/data/Fool Great work. There is a SPARQL'able version of Wordnet 3.0 available via the Talis Platform:

Re: WordNet RDF

see also http://blog.freebase.com/2010/03/12/help-us-map-wordnet-to-freebase/

WordNet RDF

Dear all, I've created a think RDF wrapper around the WordNet 3.0 database (nouns only). For example: http://ontologi.es/WordNet/data/Fool This is nothing especially new - Dan Brickley did something similar with WordNet 1.6, many moons ago, and the W3C has also published an RDF version of Word