Mike:
Concerning your suggestion: (01)
Michael Daconta wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Note: for those also subscribed to rdf-interest, I apologize for the
> cross-post.
>
> As part of a taxonomy framework, we will be linking taxonomies lexically
> by requiring each term to be mapped to a WordNet synonym or synset.
>
If by "we" [white man ;-)] you mean the Ontolog group,
I would be careful that we don't get sidetracked by
the need to 'dog' each concept we define in the WordNet
database. Some of the concepts we need will be rather
technical, and may well not exist in WordNet.
Nothing wrong with trying to find a mapping to WordNet,
as long as we don't strain to make round pegs fit into
square holes. I'm not sure that there is any value
in WordNet mappings for the Invoice ontology at this point.
Wordnet has its own philosophy, not necessarily aligned
with ours. WordNet is used a lot in NLP experimentation,
but is not close to being a standard. (02)
Pat (03)
=============================================
Patrick Cassidy (04)
MICRA, Inc. || (908) 561-3416
735 Belvidere Ave. || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054 || (908) 668-5904 (fax) (05)
internet: cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
============================================= (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)
|