WordNet is indeed a great lexical resource.
But to copy it as it is could end up with
ineffective applications, for its third level of synsets downwards ( Root:
Entity > Physical Entity [Thing, Object, Cause, Substance, Process]; Abstract
Entity [Abstraction, or Attribute: State, Time, Space, Quality, Property,
...Personality]; Thing ? is in need of full reclassification.
However strange, its middle- and ground
level collections make the strongest parts.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 1:55
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] the data
> It would be interesting to see the
taxonomy, for example, ‘shape’ is the first under ‘people’.
> Thanks for
sharing this interesting service!
Our pleasure, Marcia
What you found is a basic categorisation that wik.me uses to group concepts - mainly for page
presentation purposes. wik.me/1 is what
you get when it can't find any concept that closely matches your
The real "taxonomy" is derived from WordNet - the top level
concepts can be traced directly to WordNet noun synsets. WordNet is a
fantastic resource, and this has been a common strategy. Root is
"entity" at http://wik.me/2s .
mentioned in my first post to this forum that our aim was to create a
structure that could serve as a kind of devolved universal ontology/universal
data schema. The challenge has been to find a structure that maintains this
universality, but still offers some usefulness. What we have at the
moment has even fewer axioms than WordNet - and I'm sure we could introduce
more. It's a work-in-progress, and I'd certainly value the input of
anyone on this forum who is interested.
On 28 February 2011 03:44, ZENG, MARCIA <mzeng@xxxxxxxx>
I happen to find the taxonomy behind wik.me, starting from the high level:
At each ‘category’ there
is also a synonym ring, for example, e.g.:
Of people, organism and causal
agent May also be referred to as individual,
mortal, somebody, someone and soul.
A human being; "there was too
much for one person to do".
It would be interesting to see the taxonomy,
for example, ‘shape’ is the first under ‘people’.
Thanks for sharing this
Clicking the top result http://wik.me/lfn2 ("Albert Einstein") also gives you
something you can't get from Google - a self-organised presentation of
what wik.me <http://wik.me> "knows"
about Einstein. Google knows *nothing* about Einstein but where to
find pages that contain the string "Albert Einstein".
wik.me <http://wik.me> can also only return results
based on the data it has mapped, which means it's a valid alternative to
Google for only a minority of searches. Our estimates suggest that
with all organisations, products and services in, we should give a much
better experience for around 65% of all searches currently made against
Google. That's next.
Structured data is always going to permit greater
functionality than keyword indexing. If it didn't, you and I
wouldn't have a job ;-)
But of course Google is more robust - it
would have detected your spelling mistake and given you the most-likely
valid alternative. So it should be with 2000 engineers and over a
decade of refinement.
CEO @ factnexus.com
Architect @ wik.me
Founding member @ knowledgerights.org
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J