Hello everybody,
Am 14.03.2011 09:28, schrieb Martin Hepp:
Hi Dieter:
There are several ontology repositories available on-line, but to my knowledge
they all suffer from two serious limitations:
1. They do not rate ontologies by quality/relevance/popularity, so you do not
get any hint whether foaf:Organization or foo:Organization will be the best way
to expose your data.
I think, we discussed this issue already sometime ago. A conclusion (at
least for me) was that it is quite difficult to achieve such a ranking
quite objective over a very broad range of ontologies that are
available. It depends often on the complexity of the knowledge
representation (level of detail) a developer likes to achieve. This is
the advantage of the Semantic Web. There wouldn't never be an ontology
for a specific domain that rules all use case in it well.
2. The selection of ontologies listed is, to say the best, often biased or
partly a random choice. I do not know any repository that
- has a broad coverage,
- includes the top 25 linked data ontologies and
I think, people are looking for an ontology that fit their purpose,
i.e., popularity is good, however, it is in that case only a secondary
metric*. A developer is primarily looking for an appropriate ontology.
Not till then he/she can investigate further efforts into a comparison
of available ones, if there are more than one appropriate ontology
available.
- lists more non-toy ontologies than abandoned PhD project prototypes.
I don't want to take a concrete position here, however, every ontology
development has somewhere its starting point and is there usually not so
popular. Nevertheless, the ontology design can be a good one, too. For
that reason, why should be abandon these approach and brand them as evil?
I think, we should really investigate more power in enhancements of,
e.g., Schemapedia. This approach seems to be a quite good one (at least
from my personal experience). On the other side, something like
"ontology marketing/advertisement" plays another important role. There
are often quite good jewels out there that are badly discoverable.
Cheers,
Bob
*) I guess, the biology community wouldn't be quite satisfied when
looking at the proposed ontology charts, or?
