Chris Bizer wrote:
Hi all,
we are happy to announce the release of DBpedia version 3.2.
The new knowledge base has been extracted from the October 2008 Wikipedia
dumps. Compared to the last release, the new knowledge base provides three
mayor improvements:
1. DBpedia Ontology
DBpedia
Hi Andreas,
we for sure want to do this, but also did not want to postpone the DBpedia
3.2 release any further.
So be ensured that the upcoming public user interface for defining the
infobox-to-ontology mappings will include the possibility to reuse existing
classes and properties and that
Chris Bizer wrote:
Hi Andreas,
we for sure want to do this, but also did not want to postpone the DBpedia
3.2 release any further.
So be ensured that the upcoming public user interface for defining the
infobox-to-ontology mappings will include the possibility to reuse existing
classes and
John Goodwin wrote:
Have fun with the new DBpedia knowledge base!
Cheers
Chris
Thanks Chris and team for all your hard work getting this done. I do,
however, have a few comments regarding the OWL ontology. I think in
general the use of domain and range is perhaps a bit dubious in
John Muth wrote:
Congrats all, and big thanks for your continuing great work.
The YAGO Classes and YAGO Links links are not working for me just now -- are
the URLs wrong or are the files yet to be published?
http://downloads.dbpedia.org/3.2/links/yago_en.nt.bz2
Hi Jens,
We specified the domains and ranges as disjunctions of classes (not
intersection). See the W3C specification of owl:unionOf [1].
The version I downloaded from http://wiki.dbpedia.org/Downloads32 had all the
range restrictions as owl:intersectionOf. Or rather properties like
Jens Lehmann wrote:
Hello John,
John Goodwin wrote:
Thanks Chris and team for all your hard work getting this done. I do,
however, have a few comments regarding the OWL ontology. I think in
general the use of domain and range is perhaps a bit dubious in that
for many things I think it is
On 17 Nov 2008, at 17:00, Jens Lehmann wrote:
Hello John,
John Goodwin wrote:
Thanks Chris and team for all your hard work getting this done. I do,
however, have a few comments regarding the OWL ontology. I think in
general the use of domain and range is perhaps a bit dubious in
that
John's comment relates to (at least) the axioms on publisher:
[[
owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about=http://dbpedia.org/ontology/publisher;
rdfs:label xml:lang=enpublisher/rdfs:label
rdfs:domain
owl:Class
owl:unionOf rdf:parseType=Collection
Kingsley,
What's the URL of the strict one?
We are building a DBpedia installer for Virtuoso, so at the very least
I
want the users of this installer to have choice of strict or loose
infobox extraction.
Not publicly available yet. There was a buggy first version of strict,
but we
Georgi Kobilarov wrote:
Kingsley,
What's the URL of the strict one?
We are building a DBpedia installer for Virtuoso, so at the very least
I
want the users of this installer to have choice of strict or loose
infobox extraction.
Not publicly available yet. There was a buggy first
In the future, there will be a user interface for specifying
domains/ranges. (Georgi is working on it.) We hope that the quality of
the schema will increase over time.
exactly, we want to enable the community to maintain the dbpedia
ontology.
let's see how community agreement on a broad
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:
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
John,
Here's an observation from a bystander ...
On 17 Nov 2008, at 17:17, John Goodwin wrote:
snip
This is also a good example of where (IMHO) the domain was perhaps
over specified. For example all sorts of things could have
publishers, and not the ones listed here. I worry that if you
As anybody considered reusing the DBpedia ontology?
Juan Sequeda, Ph.D Student
Research Assistant
Dept. of Computer Sciences
The University of Texas at Austin
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~jsequeda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.juansequeda.com/
Semantic Web in Austin:
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
Very nicely put, Richard.
We are opening up the discussion here of when to define one's own and when to
(re-)use from elsewhere.
I am a bit uncomfortable with the idea of you should use a:b from c and d:e
from f and g:h from i...
It makes for a fragmented view of my data, and might encourage me
I second Hugh and Richard's point.
I think the job the DBPedia people are doing in trying to corral Wikipedia into
order is an outstanding contribution. And it's obviously hard. Uniting the
various forms of birth date and birth place for example really increases the
value of the dataset. And
Hi Hugh and Richard,
interesting discussion indeed.
I think that the basic idea of the Semantic Web is that you reuse existing
terms or at least provide mappings from your terms to existing ones.
As DBpedia is often used as an interlinking hub between different datasets
on the Web, it should
Ontology is designed to put all things in their natural places, not to
make mess of the real world;
Most people don't care about structure, they care about content.
DBpedia makes Wikipedia's implicit structure explicit in order to make
its content more accessible and (re)usable.
That's it.
2008/11/18 Chris Bizer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Hugh and Richard,
interesting discussion indeed.
I think that the basic idea of the Semantic Web is that you reuse existing
terms or at least provide mappings from your terms to existing ones.
As DBpedia is often used as an interlinking hub
Georgi Kobilarov wrote:
Ontology is designed to put all things in their natural places, not to
make mess of the real world;
Most people don't care about structure, they care about content.
DBpedia makes Wikipedia's implicit structure explicit in order to make
its content more accessible
...trimming reply list...
On 17 Nov 2008, at 23:31, Chris Bizer wrote:
But what does this mean for WEB ontology languages?
Looking at the current discussion, I feel reassured that if you want
to do
WEB stuff, you should not move beyond RDFS, even aim lower and only
use a
subset of RDFS
On 2008-11 -17, at 11:27, John Goodwin wrote:
[...]
I'd be tempted to generalise or just remove the domain/range
restrictions. Any thoughts?
There are lots of uses for rand and domain.
One is in the user interface -- if you for example link a a person and
a document, the system
can prompt
2008/11/18 Tim Berners-Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2008-11 -17, at 11:27, John Goodwin wrote:
[...]
I'd be tempted to generalise or just remove the domain/range
restrictions. Any thoughts?
There are lots of uses for rand and domain.
One is in the user interface -- if you for example link a
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:02 AM, Tim Berners-Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008-11 -17, at 11:27, John Goodwin wrote:
[...]
I'd be tempted to generalise or just remove the domain/range
restrictions. Any thoughts?
There are lots of uses for rand and domain.
One is in the user interface
27 matches
Mail list logo
