- From: François Scharffe <francois.scharffe@inria.fr>
- Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:56:50 -0700
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@ischool.berkeley.edu>, "public-lod@w3.org community" <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi Ryan, The alignment format [1] might also be interesting. It can be used for for data and schema alignment. This format is supported by many matchers, have a look at the ontology alignment evaluation initiative [2]. Also, the approach of separating the alignment as an output of a matcher and the linkset as the set of owl:sameAs definitely makes sense. You might be interested in looking at the architecture we propose around that idea [3]. Cheers, François [1] http://alignapi.gforge.inria.fr/ [2] http://oaei.ontologymatching.org/ [3] http://www.scharffe.fr/pub/ir-kr-2009/rdf-ai-architecture.pdf Kingsley Idehen wrote: > Ryan Shaw wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Kavitha Srinivas<ksrinivs@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >>> I put the raw dump of conditional probabilities on an external >>> website (http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research_projects.nsf/ >>> pages/iaa.index.html). Go the section on LinkedOpenData and >>> Extraction of Vocabularies on this page and click on the link to the >>> datafile. >>> >> >> It strikes me that this is the kind of thing it would be useful for >> publish as Linked Data. In other words, rather than analyzing >> instances, calculating a bunch of conditional probabilities, and then >> publishing a bunch of [ sameAs | equivalentClass | seeAlso | whatever >> ] assertions, one could publish a bunch of conditional probabilities >> or other similarity values, with some indication of the type of >> similarity measure used and links to the specific instance sets used >> to calculate the values. Others could then use these measures as they >> wished, setting their own thresholds for when to consider something an >> equivalence relation or not. >> >> Are there any vocabularies that might be used to publish such as data >> set as Linked Data? >> >> >> > Take a look at UMBEL, see: http://umbel.org . > >
Received on Thursday, 20 August 2009 22:57:18 UTC