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 overly specified. I can imagine anyone >> re-using the Dbpedia properties getting some unexpected inferences from >> the domain and range restrictions. Also the range restriction seem to be >> done as an OWL intersection so if, for example, something has a >> publisher x then x will be inferred to be both a Company and a Person >> which is probably not what you want. Personally, in all but a few cases, >> I'd be tempted to generalise or just remove the domain/range >> restrictions. Any thoughts? >> > > We specified the domains and ranges as disjunctions of classes (not > intersection). See the W3C specification of owl:unionOf [1]. > > The domain and range axioms help to structure DBpedia and clarify the > meaning of certain properties. While there is room for improvement, it > is not an option to remove all of them. > > Currently, there are two versions of the infobox extraction: a loose one > and a strict one. In the strict one, it is guaranteed that the data > complies to the ranges specified in the ontology schema. Currently, only > the loose (probably inconsistent) one is provided. > > Kind regards, > > Jens > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_unionOf > > > Jens, 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. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen President & CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.comReceived on Monday, 17 November 2008 17:14:27 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:45:33 GMT