David,
Sorry for missing this one earlier. Yes indeed, OpenCyc's use of
owl:sameAs caused me problems [1].
Your proposed solution of openCyc:synsetDenotes is interesting. If your
goal is coreference, I would invite you to make use oguid:identical [2].
Hundreds of questionable (in terms of coreference) links from OpenCyc
to WordNet and DBPedia have been addressed in the OpenGUID database [3].
The data is in the public domain.
[1]
http://groups.google.com/group/open-guid-discussion/browse_thread/thread/9bc828ebada37aab
[2] http://openguid.net/specification#identical
[3] http://openguid.net/e6839a3b-da25-102b-9a03-2db401e887ec (example
with questionable links removed)
David Baxter wrote:
Hi all,
We at Cycorp have been publishing owl:sameAs links from our OpenCyc
concepts to WordNet synsets, e.g.
<http://sw.opencyc.org/2008/06/10/concept/en/India> owl:sameAs
<http://www.w3.org/2006/03/wn/wn20/instances/synset-India-noun-1>
We've done so with the idea that the WordNet synset represents the same
concept as the OpenCyc term (i.e. the South Asian country in this case),
and contains further relevant information that complements what is
available in OpenCyc, e.g.
"is a member of OPEC" (OK, this one's of dubious value, but it might be
useful if it were true)
"is a member of the British Commonwealth"
"is a part of Asia"
However, WordNet also contains assertions about the "India" synset that
seem strange to assert about the country, e.g.
"is an instance of NounSynset"
"contains WordSense 'Republic of India 1'"
We'd like to know what the general feeling in the LOD community is about
these links. Is there any precedent or consensus about the best way to
link from ontologies such as OpenCyc's to WordNet? Is anyone finding
these links useful and/or harmful?
Thanks for any input.
David Baxter
