Hi John,
My thoughts are for DBpedia to stay close to the mission of extracting
quality data from Wikipedia, and no more. That quality extraction is an
essential grease to the linked data ecosystem, and of much major benefit
to anyone needful of broadly useful structured data.
I think both Wikipedia and DBpedia have shown that crowdsourced entity
information and data works beautifully, but the ontologies or knowledge
graphs (category structures) that emerge from these effort are mush.
DBpedia, or schema.org from that standpoint, should not be concerned so
much about coherent schema, computable knowledge graphs, ontological
defensibility, or any such T-Box considerations. They have demonstrably
shown themselves to not be strong in these suits.
No one hears the term "folksonomy" any more because all initial admirers
have seen no crowd-sourced schema to really work (from dmoz to
Freebase). A schema is not something to be universally consented, but a
framework by which to understand a given domain. Yet the conundrum is,
to organize anything globally, some form of conceptual agreement about a
top-level schema is required.
Look to what DBpedia now does strongly: extract vetted structured data
from Wikipedia for broader consumption on the Web of data.
My counsel is to not let DBpedia's mission stray into questions of
conceptual "truth". Keep the ontology flat and simple with no
aspirations other than "just the facts, ma'am".
Thanks, Mike
On 2/25/2015 10:33 PM, M. Aaron Bossert wrote:
John,
You make a good point...but are we talking about a complete tear-down of the
existing ontology? I'm not necessarily opposed to that notion, by want to make
sure that we are all in agreement as to the scope of work, as it were.
What would be the implications of a complete redo? Would the benefit outweigh
the impact to the community? I would assume that there would be a ripple
effect across all other LOD datasets that map to dbpedia, correct? Or am I
grossly overstating/misunderstanding how interconnected the ontology is?
Vladimir, your thoughts?
Aaron
On Feb 25, 2015, at 21:14, John Flynn <[email protected]> wrote:
It seems the first level effort should be a requirements analysis for the
Dbpedia ontology.
- What is the level of expressiveness needed in the ontology language- 1st
order logic, some level of descriptive logic, or a less expressive language?
- Based on the above, what specific ontology implementation language should
be used?
- Should the Dbpedia ontology leverage an existing upper ontology, such as
SUMO, DOLCE, etc?
- Should the Dbpedia ontology architecture consist of a basic common core of
concepts (possibly in addition to the concepts in a upper ontology) that are
then extended by additional domain ontologies?
- How will the Dbpedia ontology be managed?
- What are the hosting requirements for access loads on the ontology? How
many simultaneous users?
This is only a cursory cut at Dbpedia ontology requirement issues. But, it
seems the community needs to come to grips with this issue before
implementing specific changes to the existing ontology.
John Flynn
http://semanticsimulations.com
-----Original Message-----
From: M. Aaron Bossert [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 9:13 AM
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: dbpedia-ontology; Linked Data community; SW-forum;
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Dbpedia-ontology] [Dbpedia-discussion] Advancing the DBpedia
ontology
Vladimir,
I'm thinking of trying to do some stats on the existing ontology and the
mappings to see where there is room for improvement. I'm tied up this week
with a couple deadlines that I seem to moving towards at greater than light
speed, though my progress is not.
As soon as I get the rough cut done, I'll share the results with you and
maybe we can discuss paths forward?
I'm with you on the 30% error rate...that doesn't help anyone.
Aaron
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored
by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all
things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to
news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the
conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
Dbpedia-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
