wordnet

The article is not exhaustive, for example it does not cite Cyc or WordNet, although WordNet is used in another experiment in the book to generate poetry.

Not sure if it's exactly what you're looking for, but you might want to check out WordNet, a lexical database.

We bootstrap the knowledge graph with WordNet and then build on top of it with knowledge extracted from Wikepedia and generic web pages.

Can anyone compare the pros and cons of this to princeton's wordnet?

You can get Wordnet through the Wordnik API too...

Great, now I've got crazy ideas about wordnet and markov chains and such nonsense swimming in my head, when I should really be thinking about useful things.

Freebase, wikipedia, yago, wordnet, and some others.

And instead of the 'linguistic knowledge' being smuggled into the problem set-up increasing (initially, people used tree-embeddings, and WordNet bootstrapping, in the 2003 papers), this is getting rid of almost all structure.

> Princeton University makes WordNet available to research and commercial users free of charge provided the terms of our license are followed, and proper reference is made to the project using an appropriate citation.

My word toolbox now consists of: * Old Dictionary, Oxford and sometimes Websters * Roget's Thesaurus * Online etymology tool * English Wordnet * Oxford's Modern English Usage by Fowler ( 2nd or 3rd edition ) - it's a hoot to read.

You could manually rank a set of adjectives and then use wordnet to find synonyms and generate some heuristic from there, but the bottom line is I think it's going to be a huge time sink unless you get someone with NLP experience involved.

The inputs to those deep-learning should be as followed: num_of_word_0, synonym_number(num_of_word_0),.., num_of_word_n, synonym_number(num_of_word_n) Where synonym_number(word) is: if we start with home-house-abode from wordnet as synonyms, home=1, abode=3.

In practical use, you can simply search for anything in the "dog" subclass using the WordNet hierarchy...

The Wordapi "About" page[1] says most data came from Princeton WordNet but a sibling comment says it came from a subtitles compilation.

Objectivity doesn't mean "consider both or all sides of an argument", it means "judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices" (WordNet 2006).

> Wordnet: " an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act" You conveniently elided the part that says "(criminal law)" before that.