Hi Peter, There was a long discussion on w3c-semweb mailinglist about the dbpedia ontology. But that discussion focused on our use of domains and ranges in dbpedia ontology properties. Some people complained that those properties can't / shouldn't be used in other datasets because our domains and ranges might led to strange reasoning results.
However, I'd say you're save using dbpedia ontology classes, especially those first-level-hierarchy classes such as Person, Work, Place, Organization, etc. Thing is, there're no descriptions of dbpedia ontology classes available. What is a Person? What is a Work? What is an Organization? In my opinion, common sense provides answers to these questions. Whether or not common sense is a valid criterion is a different question... Other opinions, anybody? Best, Georgi -- Georgi Kobilarov Freie Universität Berlin www.georgikobilarov.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick Murray-John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 11:05 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Dbpedia-discussion] Use of dbpedia-owl classes in other > ontologies > > I'm curious about what people think of the appropriateness of using a > class from the dbpedia ontology as the range in another ontology. > Here's the particular case I have in mind. > > I'm working on an app that will ask faculty at my school to give > additional info about their courses by using references to wikipedia > pages, and hence to dbpedia. So we'd have triples like: > > ex:Course1 univ:studiesPerson dbres:Michelangelo . > > The range of univ:studiesPerson should be just fine as dbpedia- > owl:Person. > > But, imagine this is an art class, and a particular work of art they > are > studying is the Pieta. It would be nice to have a property > univ:studiesWork with range dbpedia-owl:Work to make a triple like: > > ex:Course1 univ:studiesWork dbres:Piet%C3%A0_(Michelangelo) > > Inference would then say that the resource for the Pieta is a > dbpedia-owl:Work, which I think makes conceptual sense, but I worry > that > it might run afoul of how those classes came about and how they work > (no > pun intended). > > > So, what's the consensus on using dbpedia-owl classes as the range for > properties in other ontologies? > > Thanks much, > Patrick Murray-John > http://semantic.umwblogs.org > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great > prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the > world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Dbpedia-discussion mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Dbpedia-discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
