(followup to http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02109.html)
There should not be cycles = loops = circular relationships in the #broader Category relationship -- cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SUBCAT Most of the cycles in dbpedia's #broader appear to come from a bug in the dbpedia parser which is interpreting [[:Category:foo]] or [[:Category:foo|bar]] links as #broader relationships, not from editorial errors in Wikipedia. See discussion at https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=935520&aid=3164389&group_id=190976 This does not seem to have anything to do with the age of the current dumps. -s --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] circular relationships in SKOS categories? Roberto Mirizzi Mon, 03 Jan 2011 13:58:01 -0800 Il 03/01/2011 18.57, Rajarshi Guha ha scritto: > Hi, I am working with the SKOD categories file > http://wiki.dbpedia.org/Downloads351#categories(skos) to obtain a > hierarchy of Wikipedia categories, starting a t a specified category > (Proteins for example). However, I am finding that some categories are > children of each other. > > For example, given the following triple > > <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Enzymes_by_function> > <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#broader> > <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Enzymes> > > my understanding is that Enzymes is the parent of Enzymes_by_function. > > However I also find the triple: > > <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Enzymes> > <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#broader> > <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Enzymes_by_function> > > which states the reverse. > > Is this by design? > > Browsing Wikipedia categories at > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CategoryTree&target=Proteins&mode=categories&dotree=Show+tree > I see that Enzymes is the parent of Enzymes_by_function and not the > other way around. if that's the case, how did DBpedia derive the above > triples? > > Thanks, > Hi Rajarshi, Wikipedia is made by men, and men are not perfect. If Wikipedia was written by God, such problems would not exist. If you find some disagreement between DBpedia and the current Wikipedia, it depends on the fact that DBpedia dumps refer to march 2010. If you run this SPARQL query: http://dbpedia-live.openlinksw.com/sparql?default-graph-uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org&should-sponge=&query=select+*+where+{%0D%0A%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FCategory%3AEnzymes%3E+skos%3Abroader+%3Fo%0D%0A}&debug=on&timeout=&format=text%2Fhtml&save=display&fname= on this endpoint http://dbpedia-live.openlinksw.com/sparql you won't see such disagreement. All the best, roberto -- Roberto Mirizzi http://sisinflab.poliba.it/mirizzi ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Special Offer-- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE (a $49 USD value)! Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better price-free! Download using promo code Free_Logger_4_Dev2Dev. Offer expires February 28th, so secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY! http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsight-sfd2d _______________________________________________ Dbpedia-discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
