Hi Tim,
The ontology is the shared one for all languages for which mappings
exist (24 languages for DBpedia 3.9). Some properties, like age, might
not be used in English DBpedia, but only in other languages. For
instance, age is used here:
http://fr.dbpedia.org/page/Horreur_%C3%A0_Arkham
Best,
Volha
On 7/15/2014 4:29 PM, Alfredo Serafini wrote:
You're welcome!
If you are mostly interested on exploring data (for navigators and
similar tools), I suggest starting from exploring properties usage
from the endpoint, and then analyse backwards how the
Concepts/Properties are modelled. For some use case (especially for
visualizations/navigations/let's say serendipity in general) this
approach may be useful.
A.
2014-07-15 16:22 GMT+02:00 Tim Potter <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
Hi Alfredo,
Thanks for your reply. Indeed I should have read the
documentation better. It makes sense now, although I didn't find
any instances of 'http://dbpedia.org/ontology/age' relations or a
number of other /ontology/* property relations in the .nq files
from http://downloads.dbpedia.org/3.9/en/.
Best regards,
Tim.
On 7/15/14, 3:24 PM, Alfredo Serafini wrote:
Hi here is a discussion which may be of interest:
http://answers.semanticweb.com/questions/12166/dbpedia-ontology-property-vs-dbpedia-property
moreover:
http://mappings.dbpedia.org/server/ontology/classes/
however if the goal is to find what is the property actually used
on data instances in order to reconstruct them live, I suggest
using SPARQL COUNT directly on the endpoint
2014-07-15 12:11 GMT+02:00 Tim Potter <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
Hi All,
I'm working on a tool for explore RDF data. Recently I've
been trying to load the DBPedia 3.9 data into this tool
however I've noticed that the DBPedia OWL file defines some
properties with '/ontology/' as the path while in the
datasets the predicate has '/property/'. An example of such
a property would be http://dbpedia.org/ontology/age vs
http://dbpedia.org/property/age. I was wondering if the owl
file is correct? I haven't worked with OWL ontologies much
so I may have assumed they are simpler than they are.
Thanks in advance.
Tim.
--
---------------------
Dr. Volha Bryl
Postdoctoral Researcher
Chair of Information Systems V
Web-based Systems Group
Universität Mannheim
B6, 26, Room C1.03
D-68131 Mannheim
Tel.: +49 621 181 2599
Mail: [email protected]
