Hi all, just seen this thread. In case it was not known or already considered
here, please see [1] as an example of how to use DOLCE-Zero foundational
patterns to revise and reorganise DBpedia ontology and data.
Best
Aldo Gangemi
[1] http://www.heikopaulheim.com/docs/iswc2015.pdf
> On 02 Jul 2017, at 18:50, John Flynn <jflyn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Excellent examination of the complex DBpedia ontology issues. Some comments:
> Many problems arise from the misunderstanding of semantic classes as set
> theory and any editing process should force a verification that any new
> subclass is in fact a true subclass where all members are also members of the
> super class(es). It also seems that many problems might be addressed by the
> use of an upper ontology that addresses consistent treatment of common
> concepts such as spatial and temporal, and possibly others such as naming
> concepts. The editor should force compliance with the rules of the upper
> ontology. A DBpedia upper ontology would also facilitate breaking the overall
> ontology into domain specific areas for easier management by knowledge
> experts in each domain of interest. The editor should force each domain of
> interest to comply with the concepts in the upper ontology.
>
> John Flynn
> http://semanticsimulations.com <http://semanticsimulations.com/>
>
> From: Sebastian Hellmann [mailto:hellm...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de]
> Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2017 9:58 AM
> To: DBpedia; sch...@inf.fu-berlin.de; Gerard Kuys
> Subject: [DBpedia-discussion] Ontology Editor comparison
>
> Hi all,
>
> for the dev telco on Wednesday, I prepared a Google doc which lists pros and
> cons of different editors:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HwtJJ3jIlrQAPwHYhvpw4a4Z4hZorTGaZTB8Bq8Y-TI/edit#
>
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HwtJJ3jIlrQAPwHYhvpw4a4Z4hZorTGaZTB8Bq8Y-TI/edit>
>
>
> Note that I am especially interested in tracking the ontology and keep its
> consistency. We don't need a GUI with the sole purpose that people can add
> classes randomly like it is already the case in the mappings wiki. So turtle
> is a plus as you can assume some experience with OWL editing. Discussion and
> discussion tracking feature is also quite important, the slides of Vladimir
> summarize this quite well:
> https://www.slideshare.net/valexiev1/dbpedia-problems
> <https://www.slideshare.net/valexiev1/dbpedia-problems>
> For other tasks, which are simple we need very easy ways to contribute, e.g.
> class and property labels in all languages or adding links to other
> vocabularies, although these need to be validated carefully, see also slides
> from Vlad.
>
>
>
> --
> All the best,
> Sebastian Hellmann
>
> Director of Knowledge Integration and Linked Data Technologies (KILT)
> Competence Center
> at the Institute for Applied Informatics (InfAI) at Leipzig University
> Executive Director of the DBpedia Association
> Projects: http://dbpedia.org <http://dbpedia.org/>, http://nlp2rdf.org
> <http://nlp2rdf.org/>, http://linguistics.okfn.org
> <http://linguistics.okfn.org/>, https://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt
> <http://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt>
> Homepage: http://aksw.org/SebastianHellmann
> <http://aksw.org/SebastianHellmann>
> Research Group: http://aksw.org
> <http://aksw.org/>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org!
> http://sdm.link/slashdot_______________________________________________
> DBpedia-discussion mailing list
> DBpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
DBpedia-discussion mailing list
DBpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
