RE: SUO: WordNet Mappings
Hi John,
We're focusing on the nouns initially. First, nouns are clearly
favored in WordNet - there is much more information about nouns that there
is about other parts of speech. The second reason is that most verbs have a
nominal form, so that mapping all of the nouns gives you most of the verbal
meanings. Of course, it would be nice to have a pointer from the noun
synset to the corresponding verb synset, and I hope the WordNet people will
introduce this at some point.
As for your point about organisation, I agree that the structure of
Word leaves something to be desired in terms of logical rigor (or course,
the database was intended to be a model of lexical memory, rather than a
formal ontology, so that's not a criticism). However, we are not using this
structure in our mapping work. We are associating individual synsets with
SUMO concepts.
I'm attaching a paper about the mapping project, in case you'd like
more detail.
-Ian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Bateman [mailto:bateman@uni-bremen.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 1:14 AM
> To: Ian Niles
> Cc: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: SUO: WordNet Mappings
>
>
> > A while back, I mentioned our project of mapping the SUMO to the
> > noun synsets in WordNet. We've now loaded the first 1000
> or so mappings
> > into our ontology browser
>
> Why the nouns? Surely the verbs are going to be *much* more
> interesting.
> Are you going to do those too? There are a host of more to
> less damning
> criticisms of the WordNet "organisation".... what about the
> EuroWordNet
> upper structure? Is that going to be done too? (Again for the
> verbs would
> be most interesting).
>
> Hopefully,
>
> John Bateman.
>
>
SUMO-WN.doc