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: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 10:11:44 -0500
Message-ID: <54D236B0.7070508@openlinksw.com>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
On 2/4/15 9:13 AM, Guha wrote:
> I think we have reached a stage where we should look beyond just 
> search engines. We need to include any/more large consumers of 
> structured data on the internet, such as Cortana, Pinterest, Gmail, 
> Google Now and others. However, I do believe that we need to be firmly 
> anchored to the reality of the information needs of applications 
> consuming the data.
>
> guha

+1

Kingsley
>
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:21 AM, Richard H. McCullough 
> <rhm@pioneerca.com <mailto:rhm@pioneerca.com>> wrote:
>
>     Martin,
>
>     I think that schema.org <http://schema.org> should be a single
>     consensual model for search engine designers.
>     But schema.org <http://schema.org> also needs to accommodate web
>     designers and web searchers.
>
>     One goal of my system is to provide a tool which web designers and
>     web searchers can use
>     to map schema.org <http://schema.org> to/from their own conceptual
>     models.  The conceptual models of
>     web searchers can change significantly in a few minutes.
>
>     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
>     <http://schema.org>
>     > From: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
>     <mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
>     > Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 11:59:44 +0100
>     > CC: sesuncedu@gmail.com <mailto:sesuncedu@gmail.com>;
>     public-vocabs@w3.org <mailto:public-vocabs@w3.org>;
>     dave@dajobe.org <mailto:dave@dajobe.org>
>     > To: rhm@PioneerCA.com
>
>     >
>     > Hi Richard, all:
>     >
>     > I think the most important question with regard to the
>     meta-model of schema.org <http://schema.org> is whether we want to
>     continue to reflect a single, consensual conceptual model that
>     defines the set of elements, their granularity, and their
>     semantics based on what search engines can realistically process,
>     or whether we weaken that requirement and go towards a more
>     generically useful set of conceptual elements.
>     >
>     > In my opinion, Web developers are adopting schema.org
>     <http://schema.org> because it is two things in one: A rather
>     generic conceptual model that fits typical information found in
>     Web sites, and a guideline of the type of data that Google, Bing,
>     Yahoo, and Yandex care about (or will in the foreseable future).
>     >
>     > Before schema.org <http://schema.org>, there was a chaos of
>     vocabularies, with unclear status and relevance. It was hard to
>     find the best elements to mark-up your content in a way any
>     relevant client would understand. While the Semantic Web movement
>     assumes ontology alignment at the point of data consumption,
>     schema.org <http://schema.org> proposes ontology alignment before
>     data publication.
>     >
>     > I know that it is slippery ground to discuss search engines'
>     consumption of schema.org <http://schema.org> in here, but I think
>     we need to be very clear about the fact that any extension of
>     schema.org <http://schema.org> must be aligned with what search
>     engines actually use for information extraction. We could spend a
>     decade on discussing ontological details of our world views, but
>     that would be resources wasted for the majority of stakeholders.
>     >
>     > If I remember correctly, Guha says in the Ontolog talk [1] that
>     he does not believe one could build meaningful conceptual models
>     completely independent from a notion of the data processing that
>     shall be supported by the data structures.
>     >
>     > Of course, this does not rule out to maintain conceptual
>     structures that can be used to improve the generation of a
>     comprehensive documentation for human users (e.g. taxonomic
>     relations) or automated validation of data (e.g. via disjointness
>     axioms and domain/range).
>     >
>     > The relationship types you propose might be useful for the latter.
>     >
>     > Martin
>     >
>     > [1]
>     http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_12_01
>     > An autio recording is here:
>     http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/resource/presentation/Schema.org--RVGuha_20111201/Schema.org_RVGuha_20111201b.mp3
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > On 03 Feb 2015, at 21:43, Richard H. McCullough
>     <rhm@PioneerCA.com> wrote:
>     >
>     > > 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
>     > >
>     > > definitions
>     > > 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 <http://schema.org>
>     > > > From: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
>     <mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
>     > > > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 22:04:14 +0100
>     > > > CC: sesuncedu@gmail.com <mailto:sesuncedu@gmail.com>;
>     public-vocabs@w3.org <mailto:public-vocabs@w3.org>
>     > > > To: rhm@pioneerca.com <mailto:rhm@pioneerca.com>
>     > > >
>     > > > Dear Dick:
>     > > >
>     > > > On 26 Jan 2015, at 15:21, Richard H. McCullough
>     <rhmccullough@att.net <mailto: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 naïve 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
>     <http://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
>     > > >
>     >
>
>


-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this




Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2015 15:12:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 4 February 2015 15:12:11 UTC