I think it is a perfectly good and noble ambition to strive for "a logically sound ontology as contrasted with a controlled terminology". I just don't believe it is attainable. Perhaps you could build it by including all existing non-compatible ontologies. I had an interesting conversation about tagging last month, in which it was stated that enough tagging could cause new ontologies to appear through organic growth. I find that an interesting concept. Our Wikipedia category tree structures are being built vertically and horizontally around a few main categories like "Category:People" that slowly get split off into subcategories such as "Category:People praying on stained glass windows" as they get too large, whereas a tagging system could lead to the formation of new categories for which there is no parent category (as yet).
2013/5/8, Patrick Cassidy <[email protected]>: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
