W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > February 2015

RE: Some interesting things that show up when using a reasoner to classify schema.org

From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@pioneerca.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 12:43:30 -0800
Message-ID: <COL129-W40FB8D17B63B05E9A55FCFAA3D0@phx.gbl>
To: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
CC: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.org>
Hi Martin,
I just skimmed your paper -- very interesting!
I think what is necessary is the ability to dynamically
integrate and differentiate the concept hierarchy,
i.e., to generalize and specialize the concepts.
In my work, I focus on the concept hierarchy.
I have implemented a system with
two inverse relations
      iss  --  is a specialization of
      isg  --  is a generalization of
a hierarchy outline relation
      ho  --  list of (level, name) pairs
             --  U:name denotes universe (top) concept
             --  u:name denotes unit (bottom) concepts
differentiation and integration relations which 
dynamically change the concept hierarchy
       isd  --  is the differentiation (specialization) of 
       isi  --  is the integration (generalization) of
       concept  is  genus  with  differentia
ambiguity measure
       ambiguity  =  sum( log( # genus of concept) )
Details are available at http://ContextKnowledgeSystems.org

Dick McCullough 
Context Knowledge Systems
What is your view?

> Subject: Re: Some interesting things that show up when using a reasoner to  classify schema.org
> From: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 22:04:14 +0100
> CC: sesuncedu@gmail.com; public-vocabs@w3.org
> To: rhm@pioneerca.com
> Dear Dick:
> On 26 Jan 2015, at 15:21, Richard H. McCullough <rhmccullough@att.net> wrote:
> > Martin
> > I enthusiastically agree that users should be able to use these vocabularies without a deep understanding.
> > As a very interested and  na´ve user, the size of the vocabulary worries me.  I find it difficult to orient myself
> > and choose the right level and the right terms which are appropriate for my application.
> >  
> > Dick McCullough 
> > Context Knowledge Systems 
> > What is your view? 
> I think we have only two means for keeping schema.org useable for a large audience:
> 1. Modularization, i.e. at least make a clear separation between 
> a) the meta-model and architecture of the vocabulary and
> b) the domain-specific parts
> but maybe even further,
> and
> 2. Strive for a self-contained, frame-based organisation, i.e. reducing the relevance of the type hierarchy, eventually up to a point where we (publicly) just have a flat bag of types and associated properties.
> That does not mean we abandon the hierarchy internally; it will remain useful for managing the vocabulary.
> Currently, users and people who want to propose extensions must understand the official and inofficial parts of the meta-model and memorize the type hierarchy.
> See Figure 4 in this paper:
>     Possible Ontologies: How Reality Constrains the Development of Relevant Ontologies, in: IEEE Internet Computing, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 90-96, January-February 2007
> A PDF is at http://www.heppnetz.de/files/IEEE-IC-PossibleOntologies-published.pdf
> Best wishes 
> Martin
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2015 20:43:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 3 February 2015 20:43:59 UTC