[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ontolog-forum] Wordnet Representations - XSD/RDF/OWL

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@xxxxxx
From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:19:51 +0100
Message-id: <BKELLDAGKABIOCHDFDBPIELLFDAA.danny666@xxxxxxxxxxx>
(cc'ed to rdf-interest again)    (01)

re. http://www.daconta.net/project_folder/WordnetMetamodel.html    (02)

> On OWL DL versus RDF.  The current version which is parseable in RDF 
> does not use any of the rdfs vocabularly.  So, what I am asking is what
> do you feel the benefits of modeling the wordnet constructs as classes 
> as compared to the current resource-based approach.  What does saying a
> Concept (aka synset) is a Class buy us?    (03)

Ok, starting from the data available already, e.g.    (04)

<wn:Word ...>
        <wn:partsOfSpeech rdf:parseType="Collection">
                <wn:PartOfSpeech wn:type="verb">
                        <wn:concepts rdf:parseType="Collection">
                                <wn:Concept rdf:ID="_1943890">
...    (05)

the (striped) parsing of the syntax that's saying RDF interpretation stuff like    (06)

<_1943890> rdf:type Concept    (07)

and I /think/ there's an RDFS interpretation available as well from 
entailments, including bits like    (08)

Concept rdf:type rdfs:Class    (09)

and on top of that you could also apply an OWL Full interpretation...    (010)

But whatever, it's all as unconstrained as it could be. Your data example does 
look quite set-oriented (lots of collections) and I'm only guessing, but I 
think it should be possible to apply a load of OWL constraints.     (011)

I nearly forgot - the benefit of the constaints being that it's easier/more 
efficient to query. You could probably bung the data into a RDBMS quite neatly, 
but presumably you want to use it alongside other ontologies and interfacing 
there could get messy. So using a common query/inference engine would be 
desirable.     (012)

The benefit of using OWL DL is that it's decidable, or so the theory gos. I 
suspect that the practice at this point in time is that you're probably more 
likely to find a usable OWL DL engine than one for OWL Full. (See [1])     (013)

What is the cost? Hard to say. I don't think there would be any cost in the 
modelling, as I don't think you'll need to mix instances and classes in the way 
DL doesn't like. If this was something like RSS we were talking about, with 
loads of tools deployed that see RDF/XML as a bunch of regular expressions to 
be pretty printed, there would be a major cost. But (praise be!) it isn't, the 
slate is relatively clean. (Having said that, isn't there a DAML wn  
interpretation somewhere, and didn't the good Mr. Brickley have a server for 
the terms too?)    (014)

But as I mentioned earlier, I reckon it would be easier to change from OWL DL 
-> Full (i.e. plain RDFS) if necessary after initial deployment than vice 
versa, the main reason being owl:Class is a subclass of rdfs:Class.    (015)

One thing I've been meaning to bring up on rdf-interest or somesuch is the idea 
of producing two versions of vocabularies - one geared towards OWL, one towards 
plain RDF. This could presumably cause complications if deployed in the wild on 
the Semantic Web, but at this point in time it may be easier to mix and match 
with other vocabs using RDFS publicly, but easier to reason with using OWL DL 
locally.    (016)

Couple of cents anyway.    (017)

Danny.    (018)

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/impls    (019)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (020)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>