W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2010

Re: Any reason for ontology reuse?

From: Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:10:31 +0100
Cc: public-lod@w3.org, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <76AF9730-FD8C-4720-B1A5-D8AFE8D3B7B8@gmail.com>
To: Daniel Schwabe <dschwabe@inf.puc-rio.br>
Hi Daniel,
Yes, counting triples is likely a bad metric, because it may be biased  
by a lot of data landfill from a single source. Also, counting  
resources is not much better, for the same reasons. The number of  
publishers should be definitely part of such a formula, because that  
indicates someone was willing to spend time adopting the ontology. I  
assume that the final metric will be a complex formula, and  
determining the parameters for calibrating the factors would likely  
make for a good PhD topic ;-)


On 04.12.2010, at 19:52, Daniel Schwabe wrote:

> Martin's message raises an interesting question, to which I don't  
> have an easy answer...
> On Dec 4, 2010, at 11:07  - 04/12/10, Martin Hepp wrote:
>> Simple rules:
>> 1. It is better to use an existing ontology than inventing your own.
>> 2. It is better to use the most popular existing ontology than a  
>> less popular existing ontology.
> Let's assume I like this rule and want to follow it.
> How can we measure the popularity of an ontology? Simply counting  
> the number of triples in the LoD cloud that have a URI from it?
> The problem with this, in my view, is that measuring a single  
> "term" (class, property) is not really indicative. As many people  
> mix and match terms from different ontologies, the popularity of a  
> single (or small subset) of terms may not be a good indicator of the  
> popularity of the *whole* ontology (when you would really benefit  
> from the ontology engineering effort put into it, as pointed out by  
> others).
> I'd love to hear different takes on this.
> *If* we can come up with a good metric, this could be reported in  
> existing directories/lists, and help users tremendously (although I  
> can also see another can of worms opening up, but I won't go into  
> this for now).
> Cheers
> Daniel
> ---
> Daniel Schwabe                      Dept. de Informatica, PUC-Rio
> Tel:+55-21-3527 1500 r. 4356        R. M. de S. Vicente, 225<br>
> Fax: +55-21-3527 1530               Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22453-900,  
> Brasil
> http://www.inf.puc-rio.br/~dschwabe

martin hepp
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen

e-mail:  hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
          http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
skype:   mfhepp
twitter: mfhepp

Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
* Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
* Quickstart Guide for Developers: http://bit.ly/quickstart4gr
* Vocabulary Reference: http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1
* Developer's Wiki: http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations
* Examples: http://bit.ly/cookbook4gr
* Presentations: http://bit.ly/grtalks
* Videos: http://bit.ly/grvideos
Received on Wednesday, 8 December 2010 15:11:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:24 UTC