Hello, Michael K. Bergman schrieb: > Hi Richard, > > Richard Cyganiak wrote: > >> Interesting project. Just a word of caution: Note that DBpedia isn't >> an ontology. From an ontology point of view, DBpedia is just a bunch >> of instances, without a nice well-engineered class hierarchy. Two >> different experimental class hierarchies are available for DBpedia >> (YAGO and CWCC), but both have their flaws, are very complex, and I >> wouldn't say that they represent the "natural order of things" -- >> maybe rather the "natural disorder of things" ;-) > > I see from the downloads page that CWCC is the Cleaned > (misspelled) Wikipedia Category Class hierarchy, but that is a > new one for me. I googled and was not able to find more. > > Could you some background and links on CWCC?
Copied from the download page: "The aim of this class hierarchy is to be close to the Wikipedia category system, but without some of its obstacles, e.g. cycles of categories, administrative categories, categories which represent instances instead of classes etc. However, the current extraction script contains some bugs and data cleansing still insufficient to be useful in applications. For this reason, the data set is not published in the SPARQL endpoint." We started an effort to clean and modify the Wikipedia categories towards a usable class hierarchy, such that we have something which is close to the Wikipedia categories but without some of its obstacles. However, due to lack of time the current data set doesn't have a good quality, so I cannot really recommend its usage except for experiments or as a starting point for improving it. Jens ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Dbpedia-discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
