Hi Danny, (01)
I agree with your analysis. To summarize, the benefits of
modeling the Wordnet constructs as OWL would be the
addition of OWL constraints and a common query/inference
engine. Of course, if my query engine was RDF based, that
would also be "common" since even my OWL ontologies are based
on RDF. (02)
I plan on working through an OWL version of the metamodel and
then have them both side-by-side for comparison. I will post
it to my website (and announce here) when complete. (03)
- Mike (05)
Danny Ayers wrote on 1/23/2004, 4:19 AM:
> (cc'ed to rdf-interest again)
> re. http://www.daconta.net/project_folder/WordnetMetamodel.html
> > 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?
> Ok, starting from the data available already, e.g.
> <wn:Word ...>
> <wn:partsOfSpeech rdf:parseType="Collection">
> <wn:PartOfSpeech wn:type="verb">
> <wn:concepts rdf:parseType="Collection">
> <wn:Concept rdf:ID="_1943890">
> the (striped) parsing of the syntax that's saying RDF interpretation
> stuff like
> <_1943890> rdf:type Concept
> and I /think/ there's an RDFS interpretation available as well from
> entailments, including bits like
> Concept rdf:type rdfs:Class
> and on top of that you could also apply an OWL Full interpretation...
> 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.
> 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.
> 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 )
> 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?)
> 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
> 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.
> Couple of cents anyway.
>  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/impls
> 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
Michael C. Daconta
Chief Scientist, APG McDonald Bradley, Inc.
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 (08)