Hi,

maybe I'm missing something, but I would appreciate your help on this
one.If I use types like here
http://dbpedia-spotlight.github.com/demo/ (DBPedia, Freebase, Schema.org),
and result is Freebase: Architecture/Architect, how can I determine the
level of the resulting concept in the ontology? I understand that DBPedia
is linked to other ontologies, but if I understand well, it should be
possible to issue query such as this one I’m trying to implement…

Srecko


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Srecko Joksimovic <
[email protected]> wrote:

>  Actually, yes. Thank you very much. I think this solves my problem…****
>
> ** **
>
> Best,****
>
> Srecko****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Mohamed Morsey [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 20, 2013 19:22
>
> *To:* Srecko Joksimovic
> *Cc:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] DBPedia ontology parsing****
>
>  ** **
>
> Hi Srecko,
>
>
> On 02/20/2013 07:02 PM, Srecko Joksimovic wrote:****
>
>  I thought I need the other three as well…****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks, I’ll try with that one. But, is everything there? When I issue a
> call to DBPedia service, I get concepts such as Freebase:”something”… and I
> couldn’t find one in this file.****
>
>
> This is the DBpedia ontology only.
> Actually DBpedia is linked to many other knowledge bases, e.g. FreeBase,
> and this list is available here [1].
>
>
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> Best,****
>
> Srecko****
>
>
> Hope that clarifies it.
>
> [1] http://wiki.dbpedia.org/Downloads38#h236-1
>
> ****
>
> -- ****
>
> Kind Regards****
>
> Mohamed Morsey****
>
> Department of Computer Science****
>
> University of Leipzig****
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
_______________________________________________
Dbpedia-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion

Reply via email to