A Survey of WordNets and their Licenses
Francis Bond
Linguistics and Multilingual Studies
Nanyang Technological University
bond@ieee.org

Abstract
This paper surveys currently available wordnets. We measure the effect that license choice has on their usage, measured by the number of citations. Finally, we discuss methods tomake wordnets more generally accessible, starting with a shared online server
for freely distributable wordnets.

1

Introduction

In this paper we answer two questions: (i)what effect does license choice have on wordnet
uptake? and (ii) How can we make wordnets
more widely useful? To answer these questions
we start off by surveying the current available
wordnets and end up trying to make a multilingual wordnet server.
This paper was mainly inspired by twothings.
The first was a discussion withresearchers in Europe who were presenting
their work on linking semantic classes between
French and Italian. They were using semantic classes derived from clustering Europarl
and we asked why they didn’t use WordNet.
Their answer was that it wasn’t available for
their languages. Our first reaction was shock— of course there are wordnets for French
and Italian. On relection, we realized that infact, they are somewhat hard to find. If you
search for downloadable wordnets for these
two languages, you end up at the ELRA page,
where you are charged a considerable amountof money for out-of-date versions from the EuroWordNet project. If you know what to lookfor, you can find free (at least for research) upto-date versions of wordnets for French and
Italian, called WOLF and MultiWordNet respectively, but they are not obvious.
The second inspiration was discussions
within projects we have been involved with

Kyonghee Paik
Waseda Media Network Center andCenter for Modern Languages, NTU
paikbond@gmail.com

building wordnets, where we were trying todecide which license should be used. We
found there was very little in the way of qualitative evidence that one license was better
than another, and decided to try to produce
some ourselves. There are over 40 projects tobuild wordnets for various languages. They
range from the Princeton WordNet of English(Fellbaum, 1998) the original wordnet project
which has over 150,000 concepts, to research
projects such as those on Bantu or Norwegian,which have yet to release any results. Because
there are so many wordnets all sharing a similar structure, but with a wide variety of licenses, they provide good data to look at license use.
Language resources, to be useful, must be
both accessible (legally OK to use) and usable (of sufficient quality, size and with a documented interface) (Ishida, 2006). We address
both of these concerns in this paper.
This paper is structured as follows. First,
we survey currently available wordnets (§ 2).
Based on the results we look at the effect thatlicense choice has on wordnet citations (§ 3).
Then we look at building a combined multilingual wordnet based on the available free wordnets (§ 4). We finish with some discussion (§ 5)
and then conclude.

2

A Survey of WordNets and their
Licenses

We have compiled a survey of wordnet
projects, and found the license for the projects
that have released data (see Table 1). This
table shows the project name, languages included, number of synsets, first release, license, canonical citation and number of citations for the canonical citation.
Roughly a third of the wordnets are open
source, that is, free and redistributable withno constraints. The most common license is avariant of original Princeton Wordnet License(a modified MIT license), the rest are free licenses such as the LGPL, GNU-FDL, GPL or
CC BY. These are all free, open-source licenses
according to widely accepted definitions suchas the Open Source Definition,1 Debian Free
Software Guidelines2 or the GNU project.3
Roughly a third are available free for research, but they cannot be redistributed orhave some restriction on their use and are thus
not open source licenses. Most of these also offer a separate license for commercial use.
Finally, there are roughly a third of thewordnets which are non-free, costing money
even for research use, although generally witha reduced cost. Some wordnets have both freeand non-free versions. In particular, wordnets
produced through Euro WordNet are all soldby the European Language Resources Association (ELRA) even if exactly the same data or
updated newer versions are also available for
free.
There is a trend for newer projects to use
open licenses (such as Japanese, Finnish andThai) and for older projects to re-release theirdata under more open licenses (such as German and Catalan).
To compile this data we took as our starting point the table of WordNet projects Wordnets in the World 4 maintained by the Global
WordNet Association (GWA). In addition toprojects listed here, we have added otherprojects that we discovered through mailinglists or conferences.
As our interest is mainly in NLP applications, we have not included wordnets whichhave an online interface but no information
on how to obtain the whole database (suchas Latin, Nepali, Portuguese, and many others). We have done our best to survey as
many wordnets as we can, but apologize in advance if we have missed any. There are someprojects (e.g., Albanian) where we could actually download the data, but could not findinformation on the license, we have omitted
them from the table.
1

www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
www.debian.org/social_contract.
html#guidelines
3
www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
4
www.globalwordnet.org/gwa/wordnet_table.htm
2

Size
Large

Date
2008

Large

2009

Small

2008

Open
Japanese
24
Danish/Thai
8/4
French
22

Free
Dutch
19
Slovenian13

Non free
Korean5
Bulgarian3

Table 2: Similar wordnets with different licenses
We sent out a questionnaire to get moredata for the paper. Entries in the table marked
with a ∗ are based on the questionnaire responses. The questionnaire is given in Appendix A.
We have created a map based on this data
(Figure 1). The map is based on countries,
which means that language/mapping involves
some subjective judgment.5 Languages with
an open source wordnet are shown in green,with a free for research wordnet in blue, anda non-free wordnet in brown. The higher thenumber of synsets, the lighter the color. When
there are two wordnets with different licenses,
we have used the most complete version as representative for that languages.
The map shows that much of the world has
at least some wordnet for it, although the coverage of Africa and central Asia is still very
incomplete.

3

Assessing the Effect of License
Choice on WordNet Citations

In order to compare effect of license choice on
number of citations, we compare a few similar size projects released at similar times inTable 2. Any comparisons done in this way
are inherently noisy — Google Scholar counts
may be wrong and citations may depend on
any number of factors, including the novelty of
the construction method, the number of people working on the language, the accessibilityof the publication venue and so forth. However, comparing the most similar pairs we can,in general the more free version has the mostcitations.
There are some exceptions, the Chinese
wordnet (Xu et al., 2008) has no citations, despite it being large and free for research. We
suspect that this is because you must email
5
For example, we have marked Spain as having freecoverage thanks to the Catalan Wordnet.

Name

Language# Synsets

ReleaseLicenseCitationCount

EnglishFinnishRussian
Thai
DanishJapanese
CatalanIrish Gaelic
Hindi
FrenchMalay,
Indonesian
SpanishCatalanArabicHebrew

155,000
117,700
117,000
73,59365,00057,00042,00032,742
28,68722,000

1991
2010
2004
2007
2008
2009
1999
?
?
2009

WordNetWordNetWordnetWordNetWordNetWordNetGPL
GNU FDLGNU FDL
Cecill-C†

Fellbaum (1998)
Lindén and Carlson. (2010)
Balkova et al. (2008)
Thoongsup et al. (2009)
Pedersen et al. (2009)
Isahara et al. (2008)
Benı́tez et al. (1998)
http://borel.slu.edu/lsg/
Jha et al. (2001)
Sagot and Fišer (2008)

6,821
0
15
4
8
24
17
—
10
22

20,0002011

MIT

Nurril Hirfana et al. (2011)—

15,556
15,556
11,269
5000

2006
2006
2008
2006

LGPL
LGPL
CC BY SAGPL

Farreres et al. (1998)
Benı́tez et al. (1998)
Black et al. (2006)
Ordan and Wintner (2007)

65
17
28
0

ChineseKoreanSpanishDutch
GermanItalianMacedonian
Romanian
Czech
Slovene115,42490,00062,00070,371
69,59438,87733,27630,00029,00020,000

2008
2007
1999
2009
2011
2008
2010
soon
1999
2010

res/com
res/com
res/com
res/com
res/com
res/com
CC BY NC
no-deriv.
res/com

Xu et al. (2008)
Yoon et al. (2009) (nouns)
Farreres et al. (1998)
Vossen et al. (2008)
Kunze and Lemnitzer (2002)
Pianta et al. (2002)
Saveski and Trajkovski (2010)
Tufiş et al. (2008)
Pala and Smrž (2004)
Fišer and Sagot (2008)

0
—
65
19
52
143
0
9
34
13

KoreanEstonian

130,878
47,0002007—

res/com
ELRA

5
0
728

Dutch
SpanishItalianGermanFrenchCzech
Estonian
ItalianBasqueBulgarian

44015
23370
48529
15,132
22,74522,7459,317
49,36030,281
23,715

1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
?
2004

ELRA
ELRA
ELRA
ELRA
ELRA
ELRA
ELRA
ELRA
ELRA
ELRA

Yoon et al. (2009)
Kerner et al. (2010)
Vossen (1998)
ELRA-M0016
ELRA-M0017
ELRA-M0018
ELRA-M0019
ELRA-M0020
ELRA-M0021
ELRA-M0022
ELRA-M0018
Pociello et al. (2011)
ELRA-M0041 (Koeva, 2008)

Open Source
Princeton WN∗e
FinnWordNet
Russian WN
Thai Wordnet
DanNet∗Japanese WN∗
Catalan WN∗
LSG
Hindi WN
WOLF
Wordnet Bahasa∗∗⊙eSpanish WN
Catalan WN∗⊙e
Arabic WN∗
Hebrew WN∗
Free for Research
Chinese WN∗
KorLex∗⊙Spanish WN∗eCornetto∗eGermaNet∗e
MultiWN∗e
MWN∗
Ro-WordNet∗
Czech WN ∗e
SloWnet∗CC BY NC SA

Non Free (Available for Research)
KorLex∗Estonian∗e
EuroWordNet
Dutch
SpanishItalianGermanFrenchCzech
Estonian
ItalWordNet
BasqWN
BulNet∗⊙Table 1: Catalog of WordNets∗

Results from our survey
A subset released under a less restrictive licensee
A version from EuroWordNet is also available from ELRA†
A variant of the LGPL
res/com means that it is available under different license for research and commercial use
Release is the first release under this license⊙

03

Figure 1: Map of Countries showing WordNet availability
Countries with open source wordnets are in green; free for research wordnets are in blue;
non free wordnets are in brown. The lighter the color, the more synsets.
Citation counts from Google Scholar (accessed on 2011-09-23)

and ask for permission to use it, which is a
substantial barrier to use. The Italian wordnet (Pianta et al., 2002) has a very high number of citations. In this case it was developed
as part of a multilingual wordnet with several
other languages, thus giving it a large citationgroup. Finally, the Thai wordnet (Thoongsup
et al., 2009), has relatively few citations, inthis case it is also a part of a large project(the Asian Wordnet: Sornlertlamvanich et al.
(2008)) which gets more citations (10).
Even with all these caveats, we think thatthe data supports the unsurprising result thatthe more open the license a wordnet is released
under, the more likely it is to be used (or atleast cited). In other word, uptake of a resource depends on how usable (legally accesible) a resource is.

4Construction of an OpenMulti-lingual WordNet

In order to make the wordnets more accessible, we have started to build a simple SQL
server with information from those wordnets
whose licenses allows us to do so. We show ascreen shot in Figure 2. Most of these wordnets are based on the extend model, basicallyadding lemmas in new languages to existing
English synsets. Therefore, adding a new language is a case of just adding new lemmas tothe synsets (annotated with their language).
In theory, this should be easy.
In practice, adding a new language turned
out to be difficult for two reasons. The firstproblem was that none of the wordnets we surveyed updated their structure when the English wordnet did. In order to combine theminto a single multilingual structure, we had tomap to a common version. The second problem was the incredible variety of formats thatthe wordnets are distributed in. Almost every project used a different format and thus
required a new script to convert it. These
two problems mean that, even if a wordnet islegally available, there is still a technical hurdle before it becomes easily accessible.
The first problem can largely be overcome
using the mapping scripts from Daude et al.
(2003). Mapping introduces some distortions,in particular, when a synset is split, we choseto only map the translations to the most probable mapping, so some new synsets will haveno translations.
The second problem we are currently solving

Catalan, English, French, Japanese, Indonesian, Spanish and Malaysian wordnets stored in acommon database searchable database.
Figure 2: Screenshot of Free Wordnet Lookup
through brute force, writing a new script foralmost every new wordnet we add. We discuss
better possible solutions in Section 5.
The server currently includes English (Fellbaum, 1998), Japanese (Bond et al., 2008);
French (Sagot and Fišer, 2008); Indonesianand Malaysian (Nurril Hirfana et al. 2010);
Catalan and Spanish from the Global WordNet Grid (Fig 2.) The wordnets are all ina shared sqlite database with a PERL cgi
server using the wordnet module produced by
the Japanese WordNet project (Isahara et al.,2008).
We plan to add further free wordnets. Additional wordnets with licenses that allow us
to serve the data exist for Arabic, Danish,
Finnish, Gaelic, Hebrew, Hindi, Macedonian,
Slovenian and Thai (see Table 1 or 3).
We also have a script that outputs wordnets
from our database into either tab separated
values, where they can be used by the Natural Language Tool Kit6 (Bird et al., 2009) or
the emerging standard of WordNet-LMF (Lex6
With the extensions that were added with theJapanese translation (Bird et al., 2010).

ical Markup Framework: Soria et al., 2009).
Finally, we will also make the SQL databaseavailable. Licenses that allow redistributionof derivative works allow people to make theentire lexicons available in any format, thus
greatly improving their usefulness.
Notes on the various formats andconversions
Our conversion scripts basically reduce eachwordnet to a list of synset-lemma pairs, which
we then map to the English 3.0 synsets. We
currently lose any extra information about, forexample, other morphological forms of words(we expect the morphological analyzers to give
us lemmas). We also lose any synsets not in
the English 3.0 wordnet.
T/CSV (Tab/Comma Separated Values) The Japanese Wordnet is already available as a table of synset-lemma pairs, and athird field that gives a confidence score, so we
can use it immediately. The Bahasa Wordnet has an additional field that says whether
each synset-lemma pair can be used in Malay
or Indonesian or either (98% of entries are ac-Wordnet
ArabicBahasaX
CatalanX
DanishEnglishFinnishFrench (WOLF)X
Irish
JapaneseX
Hebrew
Hindi
SpanishX
Thai

Ver
?
3.0
1.6
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0

Formatpwn
tsv
gwa-xmlcsv, owl
pwn∗
text tables
xml

3.0

tsv
xml
pwn
gwa-xml
LMF

?
1.6
3.0

Table 3: Free WordNets and their formats∗ Read using the perl WordNet::QueryData module(Rennie, 2000)

X Conversion script built
Ver. is the corresponding English version

ceptable in either language). We pre-process
the wordnet to output two wordnets, one for
Malay and one for Indonesian. The Danish
wordnet is similar to the Japanese wordnet.
GWA-XML A subset of the Spanish andCatalan wordnets are released under the
LGPL. They are released in pseudo XML.
We convert them to actual XML by fixing the encoding of the quotation marks
and adding a tag surrounding the whole file(<wn>...</wn>7). French (WOLF) and Hebrew are released in a very similar format.
This format is based on the de facto standard
established by the Euro WordNet project.
We have a simple script that pulls out thesynset-lemma pairs from this XML (and ignores everything else).
LMF To get a mapping from a lemma to theEnglish synset in LMF theoretically requires
two mappings (lemma to language synset, language synset to English synset). In practice,for the current version of the Thai Wordnet,
the Thai synset ID is always the same as the
English 3.0 ID. We take advantage of this to
extract the information we want with a very
simple script.
7

We have reported these problems upstream.

The remainder of the wordnets all use quite
different formats. We are hoping to persuadeeach individual project to also output the data
in a more universal format.

5

Discussion and Further WorkIn general, the freer the license, the more awordnet appears to be used. Therefore, forprojects whose goal is to produce a resourcethat will be widely used, the freer the license
the better.
Access to multiple wordnets would, ofcourse, be simplest if everyone used the sameformat. This would also make tool sharing
easier and perhaps reduce some of the current duplicated effort. Currently there seemto be two front runners: Wordnet-LMF (Soria
et al., 2009), which is explicitly designed as aninterchange format, and Wordnet SQL.8 Bothof them are easily processed with existing interfaces (for XML and SQL) unlike the PWN
format, which is very specialized to wordnet.
However, different projects already have invested effort into their current interfaces andformats, so may not change quickly. In addition, it is often easier to get funding to build
resources that to maintain them.
Given this, a more realistic medium term
goal for increasing access to multiple wordnets
is to encourage conversion from whatever local representation to a shared representation,such as Wordnet-LMF. Because accurate conversion relies on knowledge of each wordnet’s
individual structure, it would be safer if eachproject did this conversion themselves. As astart, we will release our conversion scripts.
In the near future, we also plan to improve
our conversion scripts so as to also add new
synsets when they exist, although there is currently no way to link them across different language pairs. This problem was solved with theInter-Lingual Index in EuroWordNet (Vossen,1998), but currently there is not yet a single
index shared by all projects.
All of the data in our catalog, and the map,is being fed back to the Wordnets in the World
page. We have already been sending additions
and corrections to the maintainers throughout
the project. In particular, we found the contact details were out of date for 5 out of 45
8

wnsql.sourceforge.net/uml2.html

projects, and are in the process of finding thecurrent contacts for these projects. We arealso adding projects that we know of throughthe Asian WordNet meetings to the list.
Finally, on a positive note, regardless of theactual license, researchers are generally very
willing to share their data, and will often makeit available on request, or even link to it online, even though the license does not, strictly
speaking allow this. While this is very welcome, receiving data without a proper licensedoes not legally allow its use, and thus does
not lead to more reproducible research.

6

Conclusions

We have surveyed the current coverage ofwordnets, both in terms of size and license.
Many of the world’s most widely used languages now have wordnets, although not all ofthem are freely available, and lack of standard
interfaces and data formats makes them hardto access. We have made a first step to increasing accessibility by converting free wordnets to
a common format. We show that, in general,
wordnets released with freer licenses are cited
more often.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the compilers of the
Global WordNet Association’s Wordnets inthe World page as well as everyone who responded to the survey. This research was
funded by the Creative Commons Catalyst
Grant: Assessing the effect of license choiceon the use of lexical resources.

References
Valentina Balkova, Andrey Sukhonogov, and Sergey
Yablonsky. 2008. Russian wordnet: From UMLnotation to internet/intranet database implementatiom. In Petr Sojka, Karel Pala, Pavel Smrž, Christiane Fellbaum, and Piek Vossen, editors, Proceedings of the Second International WordNet Conference — GWC 2004, pages 31–38. Brno.
L. Benı́tez, S. Cervell, G. Escudero, M. López,
G. Rigau, and M. Taulé. 1998. Methods and tools
for building the Catalan wordnet. In ELRA Workshop on Language Resources for European Minority
Languages. Granada, Spain.
Stephen Bird, Ewan Klein, and Edward Loper. 2009.
Natural Language Processing with Python. O’Reilly.
(www.nltk.org/book).
Stephen Bird, Ewan Klein, and Edward Loper. 2010.
Nyumon Shizen Gengo Shori [Introduction to Natural Language Processing]. O’Reilly. (translated by
Hagiwara, Nakamura and Mizuno).

W. Black, S. Elkateb, H. Rodriguez, M. Alkhalifa,
P. Vossen, A. Pease, M. Bertran, and C. Fellbaum.
2006. The Arabic wordnet project. In Proceedingsof LREC 2006.
Francis Bond, Hitoshi Isahara, Kyoko Kanzaki, andKiyotaka Uchimoto. 2008. Boot-strapping a WordNet using multiple existing WordNets. In Sixth International conference on Language Resources and
Evaluation (LREC 2008). Marrakech.
Jordi Daude, Lluis Padro, and German Rigau. 2003.
Validation and tuning of Wordnet mapping techniques. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP’03). Borovets, Bulgaria.
X. Farreres, G. Rigau, and H. Rodrı́guez. 1998. Using
wordnet for building wordnets. In COLING-ACL
Workshop on Usage of WordNet in Natural Language Processing Systems. Montreal, Canada.
Christine Fellbaum, editor. 1998. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press.
Darja Fišer and Benoı̂t Sagot. 2008. Combining multiple resources to build reliable wordnets. Text, Speechand Dialogue, LNCS 2546:61–68.
Hitoshi Isahara, Francis Bond, Kiyotaka Uchimoto,
Masao Utiyama, and Kyoko Kanzaki. 2008. Development of the Japanese WordNet. In Sixth International conference on Language Resources and
Evaluation (LREC 2008). Marrakech.
Toru Ishida. 2006. Language grid: An infrastructure
for intercultural collaboration. In IEEE/IPSJ Symposium on Applications and the Internet (SAINT06), pages 96–100. URL http://langrid.nict.go.
jp/file/langrid20060211.pdf, (keynote address).
S. Jha, D. Narayan, P. Pande, and P. Bhattacharyya.
2001. A wordnet for Hindi. In International Workshop on Lexical Resources in Natural Language Processing. Hyderabad.
Kadri Kerner, Heili Orav, and Sirli Parm. 2010.
Growth and revision of Estonian wordnet. In Pushpak Bhattacharyya, Christiane Fellbaum, and Piek
Vossen, editors, 5th Global Wordnet Conference:
GWC-2010, pages 198–202. Mumbai.
Sv Koeva. 2008. Derivational and morphosemantic relations in Bulgarian wordnet. In Intelligent Information Systems, XVI, pages 359–389. Academic Publishing House, Warsaw.
C. Kunze and L. Lemnitzer. 2002. Germanet — representation, visualization, application. In LREC,
pages 1485–1491.
Krister Lindén and Lauri Carlson. 2010. Finnwordnet— wordnet påfinska via översättning. LexicoNordica— Nordic Journal of Lexicography, 17:119–140. In
Swedish with an English abstract.
Nurril Hirfana Mohamed Noor, Suerya Sapuan, andFrancis Bond. 2011. Creating the open Wordnet bahasa. In Proceedings of the 25th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation(PACLIC 25). Singapore. (to appear).
Noam Ordan and Shuly Wintner. 2007. Hebrew wordnet: a test case of aligning lexical databases acrosslanguages. International Journal of Translation,19(1):39–58.
Karel Pala and Pavel Smrž. 2004. Building Czech
wordnet. Romanian Journal of Information Science,
7:79–88.

B.S Pedersen, S. Nimb, J. Asmussen, N. Sørensen,
L. Trap-Jensen, and H. Lorentzen. 2009. DanNet— the challenge of compiling a wordnet for Danish by reusing a monolingual dictionary. Language
Resources and Evaluation.

construction of bilingual Chinese-English WordNet.
In 3rd Asian Semantic Web Conference (ASWC
2008), pages 302–341.
Aesun Yoon, Soonhee Hwang, Eunroung Lee, andHyuk-Chul Kwon. 2009. Construction of Korean
wordnet KorLex 1.5. Journal of KIISE: Softwareand Applications, 36(1):92–108.

Emanuele Pianta, Luisa Bentivogli, and Christian Girardi. 2002. Multiwordnet: Developing an aligned
multilingual database. In In Proceedings of the FirstInternational Conference on Global WordNet, pages
293–302. Mysore, India.

A

Elisabete Pociello, Eneko Agirre, and Izaskun Aldezabal. 2011. Methodology and construction of theBasque wordnet. Language Resources and Evaluation, 45(2):121–142.

This is the questionnaire we sent out, reformatted to
fit in one column. We also added a filled-out sample.

Jason Rennie. 2000. Wordnet::querydata: a Perlmodule for accessing the WordNet database.
http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/jrennie/WordNet.
Benoı̂t Sagot and Darja Fišer. 2008. Building a freeFrench wordnet from multilingual resources. In European Language Resources Association (ELRA),
editor, Proceedings of the Sixth International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08). Marrakech, Morocco.
M. Saveski and I Trajkovski. 2010. Automatic construction of wordnets by using machine translation and language modeling. In Jerneja Zganec
Gros. Ljubljana Tomaz Erjavec, editor, In Proceedings of Seventh Language Technologies Conference,
13th International Multiconference Information Society, volume C.
Claudia Soria, Monica Monachini, and Piek Vossen.
2009. Wordnet-LMF: fleshing out a standardized
format for wordnet interoperability. In Second International Workshop on Intercultural Collaboration(IWIC-2009). Stanford.
Virach Sornlertlamvanich, Thatsanee Charoenporn,
Kergrit Robkop, and Hitoshi Isahara. 2008. KUI:
Self-organizing multi-lingual wordnet construction
tool. In Attila Tanács, Dóra Csendes, Veronika
Vincze, Christiane Fellbaum, and Piek Vossen, editors, 4th Global Wordnet Conference: GWC-2008,
pages 417–427. Szeged, Hungary.
Sareewan Thoongsup,
Thatsanee Charoenporn,
Kergrit Robkop, Tan Sinthurahat, Chumpol
Mokarat, Virach Sornlertlamvanich, and Hitoshi
Isahara. 2009. Thai wordnet construction. In Proceedings of The 7th Workshop on Asian Language
Resources (ALR7), Joint conference of the 47th
Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) and the 4th International
Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing(IJCNLP),. Suntec, Singapore.
Dan Tufiş, Radu Ion, Luigi Bozianu, Alexandru
Ceauşu, and Dan Ştefănescu. 2008. Romanian wordnet: Current state, new applications and prospects.
In Proceedings of the 4th Global WordNet Association Conference, pages 441–452. Szeged.
P. Vossen, I. Maks, R. Segers, and H Van der Vliet.
2008. Integrating lexical units, synsets and ontology in the Cornetto database. In LREC 2008. European Language Resources Association (ELRA),
Marrakech, Morocco.
Piek Vossen, editor. 1998. Euro WordNet. Kluwer.
Renjie Xu, Zhiqiang Gao, Yuzhong Qu, and Zhisheng
Huang. 2008. An integrated approach for automatic

Questionnaire about WordNet
licensingPlease send to: xxx@yyy
More information can be found at:<http://zzz.yyy>----------------------------------------Questions:* Resource Name:* Language(s) Described:* Developer(s):(Institution)* Contact Person(s):(name and email please)* URL:* Date of (planned) release:* License:* Reason for choosing license:* Current Size (in synsets):* Canonical citation(s):* Funding Source(s):* Main users:----------------------------------------Please answer the questions and send thequestionnaire to <xxx@yyy>. If you haveany other questions or comments, feel free
to ask us.
If you would like us to not add the data
to the GWA page, please let us know.
Otherwise we will do so.
We estimate that filling in this formshould take around 15-20 minutes.
----------------------------------------