The German chapter is working on ways to automatically import axioms in
the mappings wiki, so of course this is an option too.
We can more or less do this since we are already inserting labels into the
ontology in batch mode [1]. It would be quite helpful for us if someone
interested in
On 4/15/14 1:06 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
Kingsley's approach is one way to go but I think we should focus on
fixing the ontology in the source, which is the mappings wiki.
The German chapter is working on ways to automatically import axioms
in the mappings wiki, so of course this is an
On 4/13/14 8:32 PM, Patel-Schneider, Peter wrote:
On Apr 11, 2014, at 11:58 AM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 4/11/14 2:12 PM, Patel-Schneider, Peter wrote:
This proposal illustrates one of the major problems with the DBpedia ontology -
triples check in but they never
On 4/14/14 7:02 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
How can I use SPARQL 1.1 to change the DBpedia ontology?
You can use SPARQL 1.1 (from your SPARQL 1.1 compliant application) to
generate triples is a named graph local to your application, based
solutions returned to you from the public SPARQL
Aaah, sure I can use SPARQL 1.1 to massage triple stores, including triple
stores that use IRIs from the DBpedia ontology. In this way, I could modify
the results, perhaps to make them look like certain stuff had been removed from
the DBpedia ontology, although this process can result in
On 4/14/14 12:07 PM, Patel-Schneider, Peter wrote:
Aaah, sure I can use SPARQL 1.1 to massage triple stores, including triple
stores that use IRIs from the DBpedia ontology. In this way, I could modify
the results, perhaps to make them look like certain stuff had been removed from
the
Kingsley's approach is one way to go but I think we should focus on fixing
the ontology in the source, which is the mappings wiki.
The German chapter is working on ways to automatically import axioms in the
mappings wiki, so of course this is an option too.
I think you already pointed out most of
Hello,
Regarding class usage, the Dutch chapter does a great job already and
Magnus' query returns no results;) [1]
This means that all classes are needed at the moment.
Regarding the changes, I am also in favor to move forward and fix all
inconsistencies. Let's start already with the obvious
On Apr 11, 2014, at 11:58 AM, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 4/11/14 2:12 PM, Patel-Schneider, Peter wrote:
This proposal illustrates one of the major problems with the DBpedia
ontology - triples check in but they never check out.
Sorta, because of the misconception that
Hello Peter,
thank you very much for your inputs. The state of the DBpedia ontology is
certainly an issue.
You can register at [1], ask for editing rights, and go on and make your
changes. I'd also feel not quite well performing major changes or removing
classes without some discussion, since
On 4/11/14, 11:47 AM, Magnus Knuth wrote:
Maybe, we could organize an ontology enhancement and guidelines workshop at
the next DBpedia Community Meeting in Leipzig [2].
+1
--
Marco Fossati
http://about.me/marco.fossati
Twitter: @hjfocs
Skype: hell_j
On 4/11/14 5:47 AM, Magnus Knuth wrote:
Hello Peter,
thank you very much for your inputs. The state of the DBpedia ontology is
certainly an issue.
You can register at [1], ask for editing rights, and go on and make your
changes. I'd also feel not quite well performing major changes or
On 4/11/14 2:12 PM, Patel-Schneider, Peter wrote:
This proposal illustrates one of the major problems with the DBpedia ontology -
triples check in but they never check out.
Sorta, because of the misconception that SPARQL is steal Read-Only. I
spend a good chunk of my day writing SPARQL 1.1
On Apr 10, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Marco Fossati hell.j@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Peter,
Thank you for your detailed report.
The DBpedia ontology is (a) crowdsourced and (b) follows a data-driven
approach. Classes and properties are mainly derived from the actual data
coming from different
Hi, I think that Peter has good reasons to complain on the current status of
the DBpedia ontology :)
But besides debatable choices on names, I’d concentrate on the main issue,
which is the data-grounding of the ontology.
The major example is that there is no systematic checking of the relation
15 matches
Mail list logo
