Should we have more than one ontology? It depends on what you want to do with your ontology(s). Multiple logically incompatible ontologies are now built and used by different groups that have no need to communicate with each other. But when they do want to communicate, the incompatibility creates big problems.
Different points of view can be represented by different theories (or 'beliefs) using the same common set of basic terms (i.e. within a single, logically sound ontology). This is the best way, so that the ways in which theories or beliefs actually differ can be precisely specified using a common universally understood vocabulary. In fact, if we didn't have a commonly understood set of basic terms, we would never be able to tell that we have different theories or beliefs or how they differ. The benefits of a logically sound ontology as contrasted with a controlled terminology are the ability to do logical inferencing. In the classic example, if Jack and Joe both have the same parents we can infer that they are siblings. It gets a lot more complicated, and more useful. Therefore it is possible to have all local ontologies represented by a common logical language (i.e. a common foundation ontology). This provide the local flexibility to use terms and theories at will, while providing the maximum degree of accurate communication between the local communities of users. When different communities use different terms to mean the same thing, the common foundation ontology provides a means for automatic translation. The DBpedia ontology could serve this purpose, and I hope it is developed for that purpose, because the range of topics that it needs to represent are unlimited. Why settle for anything less? Pat Patrick Cassidy MICRA Inc. [email protected] 908-561-3416 > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:wikidata-l- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Jane Darnell > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 12:14 PM > To: Discussion list for the Wikidata project. > Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Question about wikipedia categories. > > Yes, there is and should be more than one "ontology", and that is > already the case with categories, which are so flexible they can loop > around and become their own grandfather. > > Dbpedia complaints should be discussed on that list, I am not a dbpedia > user, though I think it's a useful project to have around. > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 6, 2013, at 12:00 PM, Jona Christopher Sahnwaldt > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Mathieu, > > > > I think the DBpedia mailing list is a better place for discussing the > > DBpedia ontology: > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion > > Drop us a message if you have questions or concerns. I'm sure someone > > will answer your questions. I am not an ontology expert, so I'll just > > leave it at that. > > > > JC > > > > On 6 May 2013 11:01, Mathieu Stumpf <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Le 2013-05-06 00:09, Jona Christopher Sahnwaldt a écrit : > >> > >>> On 5 May 2013 20:48, Mathieu Stumpf <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Le dimanche 05 mai 2013 à 16:28 +0200, Jona Christopher Sahnwaldt > a > >>>>> > >>>>> The ontology is maintained by a community that everyone can join > at > >>>>> http://mappings.dbpedia.org/ . An overview of the current class > >>>>> hierarchy is here: > >>>>> http://mappings.dbpedia.org/server/ontology/classes/ . You're > more > >>>>> than welcome to help! I think talk pages are not used enough on > the > >>>>> mappings wiki, so if you have ideas, misgivings or questions > about the > >>>>> DBpedia ontology, the place to go is probably the mailing list: > >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Do you maintain several "ontologies" in parallel? Otherwise, how > do you > >>>> plane to avoid a "cultural bias", and how do you think it may > impact the > >>>> other projects? I mean, if you try to establish "one semantic > hierarchy > >>>> to rule them all", couldn't it arise cultural diversity concerns? > >>> > >>> > >>> We maintain only one version of the ontology. We have a pretty > diverse > >>> community, so I hope the editors will take care of that. So far, > the > >>> ontology does have a Western bias though, more or less like the > >>> English Wikipedia or the current list of Wikidata properties. > >>> > >>> JC > >> > >> > >> > >> I can't see how your community could take care of it when they have > no > >> choice but not contribute at all or contribute to one ontology whose > >> structure already defined main axes. To my mind, it's a structural > bias, you > >> can't go out of it without going out of the structure. As far as I > >> understand, the current "ontology"[1] you are using is a tree with a > central > >> root, and not a DAG or any other graph. In my humble opinion, if you > need a > >> central element/leaf, it should be precisely > "ontology"/representation, > >> under which one may build several world representation networks, and > even > >> more relations between this networks which would represent how one > may links > >> concepts of different cultures. > >> > >> To my mind the problem is much more important than with a local > Wikipedia > >> (or other Wikimedia projects). Because each project can expose > subjects > >> through the collective representation of this local community. But > with > >> wikidata central role, isn't there a risk of "short-circuit" this > local > >> expressions? > >> > >> Also, what is your metric to measure a community diversity? I don't > want to > >> be pessimist, nor to look like I blame the current wikidata > community, but > >> it doesn't seems evident to me that it currently represent human > diversity. > >> I think that there are probably a lot of > economical/social/educational/etc > >> barriers that may seems like nothing to anyone already involved in > the > >> wikidata community, but which are gigantic for those > >> non-part-of-the-community people. > >> > >> Now to give my own opinion of the representation/ontology you are > building, > >> I would say that it's based on exactly the opposite premisses I > would use. > >> Wikidata Q1 is universe, then you have earth, life, death and human, > and it > >> seems to me that the ontology you are building have the same > >> anthropocentrist bias of the universe. To my mind, should I peak a > central > >> concept to begin with, I would not take universe, but perception, > because > >> perceptions are what is given to you before you even have a concept > for it. > >> Even within solipsism you can't deny perceptions (at least as long > as the > >> solipcist pretend to exist, but if she doesn't, who care about the > opinion > >> of a non-existing person :P). Well I wouldn't want to flood this > list with > >> epistemological concerns, but it just to say that even for a someone > like me > >> that you may probably categorise as western-minded, this "ontology" > looks > >> like the opposite of my personal opinion on the matter. I don't say > that I > >> am right and the rest of the community is wrong. I say that I doubt > that you > >> can build an ontology which would fit every cultural represantions > into a > >> tree of concepts. But maybe it's not your goal in the first place, > so you > >> may explain me what is your goal then. > >> > >> [1] I use quotes because it's seems to me that what most IT people > call an > >> ontology, is what I would call a representation. > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikidata-l mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikidata-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
