- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:46:45 +0100
- To: Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
- Cc: 'SW-forum' <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-lod@w3.org, dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, dbpedia-announcements@lists.sourceforge.net
Azamat wrote: > > Monday, November 17, 2008 2:11 PM, Chris Bizer wrote: > 'We are happy to announce the release of DBpedia version 3.2. ... More > information about the ontology is found at: > http://wiki.dbpedia.org/Ontology' > > While opening, we see the following types of Resource, seemingly Entity > or Thing: > > Resource (Person, Ethnic group, Organization, Infrastructure, Planet, > Work, Event, Means of Transportation, Anatomic structure, Olympic > record, Language, Chemical compound, Species, Weapon, Protein, Disease, > Supreme Court of the US, Grape, Website, Music Genre, Currency, > Beverage, Place). > > I am of opinion to support the developers even when they misdirect. But > this 'classification' meant to be used for 'wikipedia's > infobox-to-ontology mappings' is a complete disorder, having a chance > for the URL http://wiki.dbpedia.org/Mess. > Ontology is designed to put all things in their natural places, not to > make mess of the real world; if you deal with chemical compound and > protein, it requests an arrangement like as protein < macromolecule < > organic compound < chemical compound < matter, substance < physical > entity < entity. The same with other things, however hard, rocky and > trying it may be. > > This test and trial proves again that any web ontology language > projects, programming applications or semantic systems, are foredoomed > without fundamental ontological schema. Is Wikipedia foredoomed also? Dan > azamat abdoullaev
Received on Monday, 17 November 2008 19:47:45 UTC