Re: Thesaurus

Vasiliy Chernov wrote:


> Has anybody on this list any experience in designing thesauri? Are there
> problems I must be aware of?

Lojban and -gua!spi both use thesaurus categories to classify their
root words.  The main issue is that classification of verbs (and
loglanish roots are essentially verbs) tends to be classification
of the grammatical subject.  If you have a verb "S goes to O" (Chinese
qu4), then should it be classified under agents, places, or events?


> For example, will I be sued if I copy the structure used in Roget's?

No.  The copyright on the classification scheme, assuming one was
valid in the first place, expired long ago (the original thesaurus
was published in 1852).  Recent editions are of course still in
copyright, but only the added materials (new words and phrases, etc.)

There is an out-of-copyright thesaurus at http://www.gutenberg.net .

--
Not to perambulate             || John Cowan <jcowan@...>
    the corridors               || http://www.reutershealth.com
during the hours of repose     || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
    in the boots of ascension.  \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel