RE: Some interesting things that show up when using a reasoner to classify schema.org

Hi Martin,
 
I just skimmed your paper -- very interesting!
 
I think what is necessary is the ability to dynamically
integrate and differentiate the concept hierarchy,
i.e., to generalize and specialize the concepts.
 
In my work, I focus on the concept hierarchy.
I have implemented a system with
 
two inverse relations
      iss  --  is a specialization of
      isg  --  is a generalization of
 
a hierarchy outline relation
      ho  --  list of (level, name) pairs
             --  U:name denotes universe (top) concept
             --  u:name denotes unit (bottom) concepts
 
differentiation and integration relations which 
dynamically change the concept hierarchy
       isd  --  is the differentiation (specialization) of 
       isi  --  is the integration (generalization) of
 
definitions
       concept  is  genus  with  differentia
 
ambiguity measure
       ambiguity  =  sum( log( # genus of concept) )
 
Details are available at http://ContextKnowledgeSystems.org

Dick McCullough 
Context Knowledge Systems
What is your view?


> Subject: Re: Some interesting things that show up when using a reasoner to  classify schema.org
> From: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 22:04:14 +0100
> CC: sesuncedu@gmail.com; public-vocabs@w3.org
> To: rhm@pioneerca.com
> 
> Dear Dick:
> 
> On 26 Jan 2015, at 15:21, Richard H. McCullough <rhmccullough@att.net> wrote:
> 
> > Martin
> > I enthusiastically agree that users should be able to use these vocabularies without a deep understanding.
> > As a very interested and  naïve user, the size of the vocabulary worries me.  I find it difficult to orient myself
> > and choose the right level and the right terms which are appropriate for my application.
> >  
> > Dick McCullough 
> > Context Knowledge Systems 
> > What is your view? 
> 
> I think we have only two means for keeping schema.org useable for a large audience:
> 
> 1. Modularization, i.e. at least make a clear separation between 
> a) the meta-model and architecture of the vocabulary and
> b) the domain-specific parts
> 
> but maybe even further,
> 
> and
> 
> 2. Strive for a self-contained, frame-based organisation, i.e. reducing the relevance of the type hierarchy, eventually up to a point where we (publicly) just have a flat bag of types and associated properties.
> 
> That does not mean we abandon the hierarchy internally; it will remain useful for managing the vocabulary.
> 
> Currently, users and people who want to propose extensions must understand the official and inofficial parts of the meta-model and memorize the type hierarchy.
> 
> See Figure 4 in this paper:
> 
>     Possible Ontologies: How Reality Constrains the Development of Relevant Ontologies, in: IEEE Internet Computing, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 90-96, January-February 2007
> 
> A PDF is at http://www.heppnetz.de/files/IEEE-IC-PossibleOntologies-published.pdf
> 
> 
> Best wishes 
> Martin
>