- From: Percy Enrique Rivera Salas <privera.salas@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 09:14:27 -0200
- To: Martijn van der Plaat <martijn@profec.nl>, public-lod@w3.org
- Message-ID: <AANLkTimBqy9eRcGP3AfgEpF2+xLJz_eFXy39Cs9DtHZA@mail.gmail.com>
Martijn, > What I personally miss in the current linked data development is a service where I can search existing properties/classes when > publishing structured data. Sometimes it takes 5/10min to find (1) the right ontology and (2) the right property/class, or in worst case I > end up with nothing, but this is maybe a discussion for an other thread. I agree with that, I'm a master student as you, and I have the same problem which we tried to solve with some techniques of ontology matching in "a priori" approach in the process of publishing data from relational databases.[1] but after the tool development and some case study we recognize some problems. 1. The lack of one "formal list" of ontologies which I can use in the reuse process made it from some organization (for instance W3C). what I mean by a "formal list" is a list of ontologies that have two minimum characteristics permanence and popularity. in my view, the closest "formal list" is [2] but I'm not sure about the permanence and popularity attributes. 2. As you mentioned before an ontology searcher which could help me in the reuse process. Ontology searcher as Watson[3], Swoogle[4] unfortunately do not take into consideration the popularity of the term(property/class) and/or the permanence of the URL. Best, Percy [1] http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1839707.1839760&coll=Portal&dl=GUIDE [2][http://esw.w3.org/Ontology_Dowsing [3]http://kmi-web05.open.ac.uk/WatsonWUI/ [4]http://swoogle.umbc.edu/ 2010/12/5 Martijn van der Plaat <martijn@profec.nl> > Hi all, > > As a master student Information Sciences at the VU Amsterdam and interested > in LOD (and SemWeb as a whole) I recently started reading this mailinglist. > The first discussion I tried to follow was the "is 303 really necessary?" > Topic initiated by Ian Davis. Well, after response nr. 10^2 I was totally > confused and almost decided to unsubscribe! > OK, now back on topic. I like both the explanation from Toby and Martin. > But the problem of knowing the popularity of the *whole* ontology, mentioned > somewhere in the comments, is IMO not interesting since in most cases a > data-publisher will use only parts of the ontology. > Also I dont believe in the added NL analogy by claiming that publishing > ideas in more than one type of ontology is a good thing. Why? Eg. The fact > that more and more datapublishers are using GoodRelations is already a great > development, imagine that every commercial sector is introducing their own > ontology, except the inherited ontologies of in this case GR. I dont believe > in automated ontology alignment technologies from this point of view. Maybe > translating *instances* of a certain popular ontology to your own language > is a better analogy? > > What I personally miss in the current linked data development is a service > where I can search existing properties/classes when publishing structured > data. Sometimes it takes 5/10min to find (1) the right ontology and (2) the > right property/class, or in worst case I end up with nothing, but this is > maybe a discussion for an other thread. > > Cheers, > Martijn van der Plaat > > Op 4 dec 2010 21:30 schreef "ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program" < > metadataportals@yahoo.com>: > > Dear Martin, > > Ad Rule 1. Is true if we can assume the builder of the ontology has built > something which is good according to some measurable criteria. For this we > have standards and procedures to arrive at standardized sets. We cannot be > sloppy when building ontologies e.g. for civil engineering, aerospace, > pharmacy, medicine, biodiversity or defense technologies, so why should we > then allow sloppy ontologies for most other fields? > > Ad Rule 2. More popular and better quality yes , more popular but probably > of less quality no. But who makes the judgment calls? The collective of > users is never a good judge. > > Rules 3 and 4 presuppose that somehow the person building his own ontology > or who must pick one from those available has the tools to determine which > is best, or how to make a good ontology. > > Knowledge and information depend on accurate, for scientific reasons > unambiguous recording in natural language, which requires accurate > terminology, definitions etc. > > The same rigid structures that dictate natural language vocabularies an > dictionaries have to apply to ontology engineering as well. > > I can safely assume that most of the subscribers to our lists have the > intuitive skills to know good from bad ontologies and what is the right > practical approach to building a good ontology, but when semantic > technologies go mainstream, a lot of people will join the fray who don't, so > somewhere along the line some standardization and formal procedures must be > introduced. > > Dictionaries exist for a reason, and they are made based on corpora and > lexicological tools by specialized linguists, and for a good reason, > according to standards and standardized procedures for arriving at such. > > And since ontologies are structured mirror images of natural language > domains it is inevitable and inescapable that good standard ontologies > should reflect this as well. > > Like in many fields of science and engineering, good rules of thumb are > always created by specialists from the same fields who can reduce many > rules, standards, based on expert experience to a few rules. > > It is this innate ability to create rules of thumb that must be captured in > procedures for ontology engineering. > > No easy task, but not impossible, and not without standards and > methodology, but as bare-bones as possible, because languages are dynamic > and flexible and ever evolving. > > Milton Ponson > GSM: +297 747 8280 > PO Box 1154, Oranjestad > Aruba, Dutch Caribbean > Project Paradigm: A structured approach to bringing the tools for > sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide by creating ICT > tools for NGOs worldwide and: providing online access to web sites and > repositories of data and information for sustainable development > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. > If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. > This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the > individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not > disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. > > > --- On *Sat, 12/4/10, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>*wrote: > > > From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> > Subject: Re: Any reason for ontology reuse? > To: "Toby Inkster" <tai@g5n.co.uk> > Cc: "Percy Enrique Rivera Salas" <privera.salas@gmail.com>, > public-lod@w3.org, "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org> > Date: Saturday, December 4, 2010, 1:07 PM > > > > > > Simple rules: > > > > 1. It is better to use an existing ontology than inventing your own. > > 2. It ... > > >
Received on Sunday, 5 December 2010 11:15:00 UTC