On 9/22/10 1:18 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:45:07 +0200
Antoine Isaac<[email protected]> wrote:
Very interesting! I'm curious though: what's the application scenario
that made you create this version?
It makes it easy to insult people in RDF.
<#you> a wordnet:Fool . #!!!
More seriously, it's mostly just designed as a drop-in replacement for
danbri's old Wordnet RDF stuff which went offline some time ago. Though
this is based on a newer version of Wordnet and has SKOSey stuff thrown
in as a bonus.
How do you make the distinction between the two situations--I mean,
based on which elements in the Wordnet data?
*I* don't.
If somebody decides that wordnet:Crack is accurate and specific enough
for them, even though it's a class that covers sound effects, Class A
drugs and fissures, then that's fine by me. If they want more specific
classes, then those are provided too.
Ah, ok, my misunderstanding. I thought that you had created
http://ontologi.es/WordNet/data/Fool because all fool synsets were very
similar, and not http://ontologi.es/WordNet/data/Crack because there would be
too different meanings below that one. But now that I've seen that
http://ontologi.es/WordNet/data/Crack in fact exists, I infer that you've
created them for all these possible groups of synsets.
Thanks,
Antoine
