Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] Fwd: Your message to Dbpedia-discussion awaits moderator approval

Kavitha Srinivas wrote:
> I understand what you are saying -- but some of this reflects the way
> types are associated with freebase instances.  The types are more like
> 'tags' in the sense that there is no hierarchy, but each instance is
> annotated with multiple types.  So an artist would in fact be annotated
> with person reliably (and probably less consistently with
> /music/artist).  Similar issues with Uyhurs, murdered children etc.  The
> issue is differences in modeling granularity as well.  Perhaps a better
> thing to look at are types where the YAGO types map to Wordnet (this is
> usually at a coarser level of granularity).

I think you need a different property to express the relation between the
freebase types and yago classes.  The whole point of grounding OWL in logic is
to allow people and computers to draw inferences from the OWL statements.  Those
statements in the dump do assert that anything that is in the set yago:Uyghurs
is also in the set yago:MurderedChildren and vice versa.

Why not use rdfs:subClassOf to relate a yago class to a freebase type when every
member of the class is tagged with the type but not everything tagged with the
type is a member of the class.

skos:narrower is another option, maybe.

Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 20:28:20 UTC