W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2008

Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:38:52 -0500
Cc: Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>, 'SW-forum' <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-lod@w3.org, dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, dbpedia-announcements@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-Id: <7082C220-32D3-48E8-AD65-07656109A555@acm.org>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>

On Nov 17, 2008, at 2:46 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:

>
> 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

It may very well be, if your ontological commitment is that all things  
have "natural places", and the real world is not actually a mess.   
However, at least for the kind of ontology being discussed here, it  
seems to me that the ontology may not be so much *making* a mess of  
the real world as reflecting it.

--Frank


>
>
>> azamat abdoullaev
>
>
Received on Monday, 17 November 2008 20:39:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:20:43 UTC