Re: data schema / vocabulary / ontology / repositories

Ranking ontologies is indeed very personal, so is ranking of laptops,
bicycles and books.  But people rank them all the time. My first port of
call is always Amazon.

Might it work to have similar ratings for ontologies and vocabularies?  The
home for this could be OOR.

Michael

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net> wrote:

> Hello everybody,
>
> Am 14.03.2011 09:28, schrieb Martin Hepp:
>
>  Hi Dieter:
>>
>> There are several ontology repositories available on-line, but to my
>> knowledge they all suffer from two serious limitations:
>>
>> 1. They do not rate ontologies by quality/relevance/popularity, so you do
>> not get any hint whether foaf:Organization or foo:Organization will be the
>> best way to expose your data.
>>
>
> I think, we discussed this issue already sometime ago. A conclusion (at
> least for me) was that it is quite difficult to achieve such a ranking quite
> objective over a very broad range of ontologies that are available. It
> depends often on the complexity of the knowledge representation (level of
> detail) a developer likes to achieve. This is the advantage of the Semantic
> Web. There wouldn't never be an ontology for a specific domain that rules
> all use case in it well.
>
>
>  2. The selection of ontologies listed is, to say the best, often biased or
>> partly a random choice. I do not know any repository that
>> - has a broad coverage,
>> - includes the top 25 linked data ontologies and
>>
>
> I think, people are looking for an ontology that fit their purpose, i.e.,
> popularity is good, however, it is in that case only a secondary metric*. A
> developer is primarily looking for an appropriate ontology. Not till then
> he/she can investigate further efforts into a comparison of available ones,
> if there are more than one appropriate ontology available.
>
>
>  - lists more non-toy ontologies than abandoned PhD project prototypes.
>>
>
> I don't want to take a concrete position here, however, every ontology
> development has somewhere its starting point and is there usually not so
> popular. Nevertheless, the ontology design can be a good one, too. For that
> reason, why should be abandon these approach and brand them as evil?
>
> I think, we should really investigate more power in enhancements of, e.g.,
> Schemapedia. This approach seems to be a quite good one (at least from my
> personal experience). On the other side, something like "ontology
> marketing/advertisement" plays another important role. There are often quite
> good jewels out there that are badly discoverable.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Bob
>
>
> *) I guess, the biology community wouldn't be quite satisfied when looking
> at the proposed ontology charts, or?
>
>


-- 
Michael Uschold, PhD
   Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts
   LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu
   Skype, Twitter: UscholdM