Laura Bloksma

The top-down strategy for building EuroWordNet: vocabulary coverage, base concepts and top ontology

This paper describes two fundamental aspects in the process of building of the EuroWordNet database. In EuroWordNet we have chosen for a flexible design in which local wordnets are built relatively independently as language-specific structures, which are linked to an Inter-Lingual-Index (ILI). To ensure compatibility between the wordnets, a core set of common concepts has been defined that has to be covered by every language. Furthermore, these concepts have been classified via the ILI in terms of a Top Ontology of 63 fundamental semantic distinctions used in various semantic theories and paradigms. This paper first discusses the process leading to the definition of the set of Base Concepts, and the structure and the rationale of the Top Ontology.

The linguistic design of the EuroWordNet database

In this paper the linguistic design of the database under construction within the EuroWordNet project is described. This is mainly structured along the same lines as the Princeton WordNet, although some changes have been made to the WordNet overall design due to both theoretical and practical reasons. The most important reasons for such changes are the multilinguality of the EuroWordNet database and the fact that it is intended to be used in Language Engineering applications. Thus, i) some relations have been added to those identified in WordNet; ii) some labels have been identified which can be added to the relations in order to make their implications more explicit and precise; iii) some relations, already present in the WordNet design, have been modified in order to specify their role more clearly.

Compatibility in interpretation of relations in EuroWordNet

This paper describes how the Euro WordNet project established a maximum level of consensus in the interpretation of relations, without loosing the possibility of encoding language-specific lexicalizations. Problematic cases arise due to the fact that each site re-used different resources and because the core vocabulary of the wordnets show complex properties. Many of these cases are discussed with respect to language internal and equivalence relations. Possible solutions are given in the form of additional criteria.