I'd say that things are represented well in Dbpedia when the things are 
objects that have well defined properties.

For instance,  if I show up at the courthouse with a birth certificate that 
documents my date and place of birth and my parents,  that proves that I'm a 
particular Person.  Someday I'll have a death certificate with a date, 
place and cause of death and in between there may be records about jobs I 
held,  things I wrote,  performances I was in and so forth.

People who make their mark with creative activities,  for instance,  I think 
DBpedia well represents the creative output of somebody like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Speilberg

On the other hand if somebody is a cop/bureaucrat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover

it is harder to document their career.  For instance,  it wouldn't be so 
clear that his influence was orders of magnitude greater than any of these 
people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_the_Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation

I suppose you could add properties for "?s arrested ?o ." and "?s did 
surveillance on ?o ." and "?s intimidated ?o ." but that is not there now.

You can also do a good job with chemicals,  automobiles,  airplane models 
and things like that.

On the other hand,  consider topics like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_radio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_arranging

Even though these are all activities that people do,  they don't have common 
properties in infoboxes.  I guess they could,  because people spend a 
certain amount of money on these things a year,  a certain number of people 
are interested,  all three of them are things people can do as a hobby but 
you can't (by law) make money doing amateur radio (unless you're a teacher 
helping a class talk to astronauts on the ISS or that you can occasionally 
sell used gear on a swap net.)


-----Original Message----- 
From: Yury Katkov
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 11:38 AM
To: dbpedia-discussion
Subject: [Dbpedia-discussion] what areas of knowledge has the best 
qualityand coverage in dbpedia?

Hi everyone!

What topics/categories have the best quality of the data? What topics
are covered better than other? Are there any analysis about that or
maybe your personal feelings?
-----
Yury Katkov, WikiVote

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most 
from
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60133471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Dbpedia-discussion mailing list
Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from 
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Dbpedia-discussion mailing list
Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion

Reply via email to