Hmm. Well, perhaps one could argue that there should be no hierarchy at all.
Using the DBpedia ontology does commit you to a lot of things, many of them quite questionable. For example, in the DBpedia ontology churches are buildings, which is not true for many churches, and not even true for the physical location associated with many churches. This is one of the things that I think needs to be changed. peter On Apr 15, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Paul Houle <ontolo...@gmail.com> wrote: > I try not to get hung up on the idea of having one right hierarchy but > assume most end users will need to interpret the types that exist in > the way that makes sense for what they are doing. > > The idea of foaf:Agent, which is a superclass of both person and > organization, is a powerful concept because of properties shared by > these two "things"; for instance, either can be a party to a > lawsuit. Even in music you could say a brand like "Michael Jackson" > is a team effort. > > On the other hand some people want :Flutist to be a subclass of > :Person and it makes sense to say one person who plays the flute is a > :Flutist but you can't say that a trio that all plays the flute is a > :Flutist. Everybody has some theorem they expect the system to prove > and they won't accept your axiom set unless you can prove their > theorem with it. > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Patel-Schneider, Peter > <peter.patel-schnei...@nuance.com> wrote: >> schema.org is controlled by the schema.org partners, Google, Yahoo!, Bing, >> and Yandex. Contributions from the community are accepted, but are vetted >> before being added to schema.org >> >> See http://schema.org for more information. >> >> >> One problem with alignment to schema.org is that the formal meaning of the >> schema.org ontology is unusual and not fully explained. >> >> peter >> >> >> >> On Apr 14, 2014, at 10:08 PM, 小出 誠二 <seijikoi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear Peter >>> >>> For eyes of ontologists, it is well known that DBpedia ontology is >>> incorrect, but I have never check about the contents of schema.org. Thank >>> you for the info. >>> >>> I am planning to correct trustable ontologies like schema.org, but I do not >>> know how to revise or advice the contents of schema.org. >>> >>> Does anyone know it? Or does anyone have interest the portal sites of >>> trustable ontologies? >>> >>> Seiji Koide >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Patel-Schneider, Peter [mailto:peter.patel-schnei...@nuance.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 1:50 PM >>> To: dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net >>> Subject: [Dbpedia-discussion] probably incorrect mapping to schema.org from >>> MusicalArtist >>> >>> The ontology says that MusicalArtist is a subclass of schema.org:MusicGroup. >>> >>> This seemed very odd to me, but then I looked at schema.org and noticed that >>> schema.org:MusicGroup can also be for *solo* artists. However, >>> MusicalArtist is for any musical artist, not just soloists. So this mapping >>> still looks incorrect. >>> >>> peter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field, this first edition is now available. Download your free book today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech _______________________________________________ Dbpedia-discussion mailing list Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
