Re: SUO: RE: An article on the pitfalls of metadata
>
>
>I have the database
>files for WordNet 1.7.1 and WordNet 2.0, but the ontology
>isn't made explicit there. Do you know of a reference URL
>that describes it more explicitly?
>
I said this a year or two ago but this list is pretty cycle-tolerant it
seems. The upper
levels of WordNet were explicitly examined in a range of papers in
the late 90s and were
replaced generally in the EuroWordNet project because of their
now generally quite well-known weaknesses. Why not look at the
EWN hierarchies instead? Has the Wn2 hierarchy moved in this direction
or away?
The idea of creating upper level categories automatically (a) by
looking at WordNet synsets, or (b) looking at corpus data for
how words are used is an interesting suggestion. How about
taking the entire discussion of that offline and reporting back when
it has been done....
How you might produce a FCA-derived lattice
of the lot is pretty obvious (assuming you have a large enough
machine sitting in the corner that you are not going to be wanting
to do much with for a while...), what that lattice will look
like will however be itself sufficiently in need of analysis that
a few top-level hypotheses might well do a lot of good. But
I am willing to wait for the outcome (i.e., this machine-derived
lattice) rather than wasting too much time wondering
about what it might be and whether it should be done. But
if no one is going to do it, then why bother talking about it.
(b) is pretty much what has been done / is being done for many
years by COBUILD group in Birmingham, England. Their
semantically-organized grammar is based entirely on this procedure,
but without the machine-learning component. It hadn't occurred
to me to classify this as an *ontology* activity however. Any
corpus linguists on this list who might know what the task
involves?
(a) does this have any possible advantage over (b) apart from
the data being ready to process in various ways?
John B.