On Nov 17, 2008, at 2:46 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
Azamat wrote:
Monday, November 17, 2008 2:11 PM, Chris Bizer wrote:
'We are happy to announce the release of DBpedia version 3.2. ...
More information about the ontology is found at: http://wiki.dbpedia.org/Ontology'
While opening, we see the following types of Resource, seemingly
Entity or Thing:
Resource (Person, Ethnic group, Organization, Infrastructure,
Planet, Work, Event, Means of Transportation, Anatomic structure,
Olympic record, Language, Chemical compound, Species, Weapon,
Protein, Disease, Supreme Court of the US, Grape, Website, Music
Genre, Currency, Beverage, Place).
I am of opinion to support the developers even when they misdirect.
But this 'classification' meant to be used for 'wikipedia's infobox-
to-ontology mappings' is a complete disorder, having a chance for
the URL http://wiki.dbpedia.org/Mess.
Ontology is designed to put all things in their natural places, not
to make mess of the real world; if you deal with chemical compound
and protein, it requests an arrangement like as protein <
macromolecule < organic compound < chemical compound < matter,
substance < physical entity < entity. The same with other things,
however hard, rocky and trying it may be.
This test and trial proves again that any web ontology language
projects, programming applications or semantic systems, are
foredoomed without fundamental ontological schema.
Is Wikipedia foredoomed also?
Dan
It may very well be, if your ontological commitment is that all things
have "natural places", and the real world is not actually a mess.
However, at least for the kind of ontology being discussed here, it
seems to me that the ontology may not be so much *making* a mess of
the real world as reflecting it.
--Frank
azamat abdoullaev
