W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > February 2015

Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] [Dbpedia-ontology] Advancing the DBpedia ontology

From: Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 23:19:56 -0600
Message-ID: <54EEACFC.9040203@mkbergman.com>
To: "M. Aaron Bossert" <mabossert@gmail.com>, John Flynn <jflynn12@verizon.net>
CC: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, SW-forum <semantic-web@w3.org>, dbpedia-ontology <dbpedia-ontology@lists.sourceforge.net>, "<dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>" <dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>
Hi John,

My thoughts are for DBpedia to stay close to the mission of extracting 
quality data from Wikipedia, and no more. That quality extraction is an 
essential grease to the linked data ecosystem, and of much major benefit 
to anyone needful of broadly useful structured data.

I think both Wikipedia and DBpedia have shown that crowdsourced entity 
information and data works beautifully, but the ontologies or knowledge 
graphs (category structures) that emerge from these effort are mush.

DBpedia, or schema.org from that standpoint, should not be concerned so 
much about coherent schema, computable knowledge graphs, ontological 
defensibility, or any such T-Box considerations. They have demonstrably 
shown themselves to not be strong in these suits.

No one hears the term "folksonomy" any more because all initial admirers 
have seen no crowd-sourced schema to really work (from dmoz to 
Freebase). A schema is not something to be universally consented, but a 
framework by which to understand a given domain. Yet the conundrum is, 
to organize anything globally, some form of conceptual agreement about a 
top-level schema is required.

Look to what DBpedia now does strongly: extract vetted structured data 
from Wikipedia for broader consumption on the Web of data.

My counsel is to not let DBpedia's mission stray into questions of 
conceptual "truth". Keep the ontology flat and simple with no 
aspirations other than "just the facts, ma'am".

Thanks, Mike

On 2/25/2015 10:33 PM, M. Aaron Bossert wrote:
> John,
>
> You make a good point...but are we talking about a complete tear-down of the existing ontology?  I'm not necessarily opposed to that notion, by want to make sure that we are all in agreement as to the scope of work, as it were.
>
> What would be the implications of a complete redo?  Would the benefit outweigh the impact to the community?  I would assume that there would be a ripple effect across all other LOD datasets that map to dbpedia, correct?  Or am I grossly overstating/misunderstanding how interconnected the ontology is?
>
> Vladimir, your thoughts?
>
> Aaron
>
>> On Feb 25, 2015, at 21:14, John Flynn <jflynn12@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> It seems the first level effort should be a requirements analysis for the
>> Dbpedia ontology.
>> - What is the level of expressiveness needed in the ontology language- 1st
>> order logic, some level of descriptive logic, or a less expressive language?
>> - Based on the above, what specific ontology implementation language should
>> be used?
>> - Should the Dbpedia ontology leverage an existing upper ontology, such as
>> SUMO, DOLCE, etc?
>> - Should the Dbpedia ontology architecture consist of a basic common core of
>> concepts (possibly in addition to the concepts in a upper ontology) that are
>> then extended by additional domain ontologies?
>> - How will the Dbpedia ontology be managed?
>> - What are the hosting requirements for access loads on the ontology? How
>> many simultaneous users?
>>
>> This is only a cursory cut at Dbpedia ontology requirement issues. But, it
>> seems the community needs to come to grips with this issue before
>> implementing specific changes to the existing ontology.
>>
>> John Flynn
>> http://semanticsimulations.com
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: M. Aaron Bossert [mailto:mabossert@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 9:13 AM
>> To: <vladimir.alexiev@ontotext.com>
>> Cc: dbpedia-ontology; Linked Data community; SW-forum;
>> <dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Dbpedia-ontology] [Dbpedia-discussion] Advancing the DBpedia
>> ontology
>>
>> Vladimir,
>>
>> I'm thinking of trying to do some stats on the existing ontology and the
>> mappings to see where there is room for improvement.  I'm tied up this week
>> with a couple deadlines that I seem to moving towards at greater than light
>> speed, though my progress is not.
>>
>> As soon as I get the rough cut done, I'll share the results with you and
>> maybe we can discuss paths forward?
>>
>> I'm with you on the 30% error rate...that doesn't help anyone.
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored
> by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all
> things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to
> news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the
> conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
> _______________________________________________
> Dbpedia-discussion mailing list
> Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
>
>
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2015 05:20:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:57 UTC