I'm looking at my sample some more. Here's the distribution of
toplevel types from the dbpedia ontology
+-----------------------------------+----------+
| type | count(*) |
+-----------------------------------+----------+
| SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase | 3 |
| Website | 4 |
| Event | 21 |
| Infrastructure | 47 |
| Work | 525 |
| Organisation | 649 |
| Place | 712 |
| Person | 2208 |
| NULL | 6961 |
+-----------------------------------+----------+
6961 out of 11130 objects are untyped, or about 62%. Looking at
the actual untyped objects, my rough guess is that 80-90% of the
objects could be assigned types in the dbpedia ontology, such as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Pulitzer
I'm sure the metaweb people will gloat that he's typed in freebase.
http://www.freebase.com/view/en/joseph_pulitzer
Maybe half of the untyped items I see are People, but I see some
Works, Places, etc.
I'm going to line these up with FB types and see what happens.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Dbpedia-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
