RE: SUO: Multi-Source Ontology (MSO) Draft Ballot Question
Philippe,
Thanks so much for the egoless evaluation of your work
vis a vis WordNet. Your corrections seem very reasonable
and should help advance the usefulness of WordNet 2.1 if
they are actually implemented.
I was surprised to see in Randee Tengi's response that
only four part timers are working on WordNet at the present.
It seems to me that such a valuable resource could be made
very useful to the intense NLP work now beginning to be
practical due to the exponentially increasing value of
the internet and its contributors. A stronger ontological
swing, properly funded of course, might make it so.
Maybe we should all write our congresspersons about it.
Thanks,
Rich
Philippe Martin wrote:
> > Philippe, I notice that your paper at the site you reference
> > below is titled "Correction and Extension of WordNet 1.7".
>
> To be more precise it should have been titled "Correction and
> extension of the noun-related part of WordNet 1.7 for
> knowledge representation/retrieval/sharing purposes".
>
> I do think that a more KR oriented approach/methodology (i.e.
> simply being slightly more precise) would be beneficial
> to everyone (KR people and linguists) but not all members of
> the WordNet team are willing to go that way.
>
>
> > Did your corrections and extensions make it into the latest
> > version - WordNet 2.0, or are they still being considered
> > by the Princeton crew?
>
> Neither, I guess. Here is the story so far.
>
> On the 25/06/2002, I sent the URL of my lexical/semantic corrections
> of WordNet 1.7 (786 corrections at that time) to wordnet@princeton.edu
> (i.e. actually Randee Tengi) and late October I enquired about their
> insertion in WordNet. Here are 2 extracts from her answers on the
> 28/10/2002 and 29/10/2002.
>
> I can't remember exactly what you've sent in the past, but I'm
> sure they were forwarded to the lexicographers for inclusion
> in a future release (please don't resend them).
>
> We're really just 4 part-time workers here, and we can't easily
> keep up with all the wonderful offers of input, data, corrections,
> etc., that our thousands of users offer us. We're thrilled that
> they find WordNet useful and applicable, but we don't have the
> resources to get personally involved in others' reasearch unless
> there is a very direct link to the basic WordNet that we provide,
> or they're giving us funding to do something!
>
> WordNet 2.0 (the version including correspondences between
> noun synsets and verb synsets) came directly after the 1.7 and in
> August 2003, i.e. much earlier than announced.
> May be the corrections I sent were too numerous or too late to
> be included in the 2.0 version but it seems that they have been
> ignored (including the reports of link redundancies) although I
> have not done a systematic check.
>
> When I presented my article in August 2003 I was advised to contact
> Christiane Fellbaum directly. However, I decided to wait a bit
> to see if I could integrate WordNet 2.0 (noun-related part and
> others) and thus send up-to-date corrections. But this would have
> required at the very least a full month of work on this task and
> this did not happen. Since I now know that this is not likely to
> happen soon, and thanks to your reminder, I am sending an email
> to Christiane Fellbaum right now.
>
>
>
> > What is the most correct and extended WordNet now available,
> > or is yours the best at this point?
>
> For manual knowledge representation and sharing purposes (where
> you should not need the verb/adverb/adjective related parts),
> mine is more correct and extended, and better to use.
>
> For automatic NLP and other linguistic applications, I think
> the advantage of having the correspondences between noun synsets
> and verb synsets far outweights my few corrections and extensions
> (and a simple approach to generate category identifiers can be
> applied).
>
>
> Philippe
>
>
>