I just found another annoying "feature" of both dbpedia 3.4 and 3.5.

    Some cites,  like this one

http://dbpedia.org/page/Dresden

    have an rdf:type of "dbpedia-owl:City" as one would expect.  On the 
other hand,  there are a lot of major "cities" which don't have this 
type,  such as

http://dbpedia.org/page/Tokyo
http://dbpedia.org/page/New_York_City <http://dbpedia.org/page/Tokyo>
http://dbpedia.org/page/London <http://dbpedia.org/page/Tokyo>
http://dbpedia.org/page/Los_Angeles <http://dbpedia.org/page/Tokyo>
http://dbpedia.org/page/Paris <http://dbpedia.org/page/Tokyo>
http://dbpedia.org/page/São_Paulo <http://dbpedia.org/page/S%C3%A3o_Paulo>

    To be fair,  these are all in as 'populated places' so there are 
infoboxes with useful information about these places.

    First I thought that a lot of the above "cities" aren't really 
"Cities" in the technical sense of the word,  for instance,  Tokyo and 
London are both composite entities that consist of multiple cities.  
(NYC really is a legal city,  but the 5 boroughs are third-level 
administrative subdivisions!) But then I looked at some cities which 
aren't so ontologically challenged:

http://dbpedia.org/page/Ithaca,_New_York (ok, there is a "City Of" and 
"Town Of" Ithaca,  like you often see in New York state)
http://dbpedia.org/page/Manchester,_New_Hampshire 

    and found that these don't have an rdf:type of "City" either.  The 
moral seems to be that the "City" type in dbpedia isn't all that useful 
currently.  There is a type,  however,  in Freebase

http://www.freebase.com/view/location/citytown

    which is a bit more accurately assigned and roughly corresponds to 
"Municipality" in the dbpedia ontology.

    I was hoping to use the dbpedia ontology as the taxonomic skeleton 
for my next site,  but now I'm left with the choice of 'bending' the 
dbpedia ontology (I don't feel bad asserting that Manchester is a 
dbpedia-owl:City but I do fret about "Tokyo" and "London"...) or 
creating my own taxonomy,  which is a job I'll screw up as much as the 
next guy.  Any thoughts?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Dbpedia-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion

Reply via email to