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

I think we have reached a stage where we should look beyond just search
engines. We need to include any/more large consumers of structured data on
the internet, such as Cortana, Pinterest, Gmail, Google Now and others.
However, I do believe that we need to be firmly anchored to the reality of
the information needs of applications consuming the data.

guha

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:21 AM, Richard H. McCullough <rhm@pioneerca.com>
wrote:

> Martin,
>
> I think that schema.org should be a single consensual model for search
> engine designers.
> But schema.org also needs to accommodate web designers and web searchers.
>
> One goal of my system is to provide a tool which web designers and web
> searchers can use
> to map schema.org to/from their own conceptual models.  The conceptual
> models of
> web searchers can change significantly in a few minutes.
>
> 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: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 11:59:44 +0100
> > CC: sesuncedu@gmail.com; public-vocabs@w3.org; dave@dajobe.org
> > To: rhm@PioneerCA.com
>
> >
> > Hi Richard, all:
> >
> > I think the most important question with regard to the meta-model of
> schema.org is whether we want to continue to reflect a single, consensual
> conceptual model that defines the set of elements, their granularity, and
> their semantics based on what search engines can realistically process, or
> whether we weaken that requirement and go towards a more generically useful
> set of conceptual elements.
> >
> > In my opinion, Web developers are adopting schema.org because it is two
> things in one: A rather generic conceptual model that fits typical
> information found in Web sites, and a guideline of the type of data that
> Google, Bing, Yahoo, and Yandex care about (or will in the foreseable
> future).
> >
> > Before schema.org, there was a chaos of vocabularies, with unclear
> status and relevance. It was hard to find the best elements to mark-up your
> content in a way any relevant client would understand. While the Semantic
> Web movement assumes ontology alignment at the point of data consumption,
> schema.org proposes ontology alignment before data publication.
> >
> > I know that it is slippery ground to discuss search engines' consumption
> of schema.org in here, but I think we need to be very clear about the
> fact that any extension of schema.org must be aligned with what search
> engines actually use for information extraction. We could spend a decade on
> discussing ontological details of our world views, but that would be
> resources wasted for the majority of stakeholders.
> >
> > If I remember correctly, Guha says in the Ontolog talk [1] that he does
> not believe one could build meaningful conceptual models completely
> independent from a notion of the data processing that shall be supported by
> the data structures.
> >
> > Of course, this does not rule out to maintain conceptual structures that
> can be used to improve the generation of a comprehensive documentation for
> human users (e.g. taxonomic relations) or automated validation of data
> (e.g. via disjointness axioms and domain/range).
> >
> > The relationship types you propose might be useful for the latter.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > [1] http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_12_01
> > An autio recording is here:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/resource/presentation/Schema.org--RVGuha_20111201/Schema.org_RVGuha_20111201b.mp3
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 03 Feb 2015, at 21:43, Richard H. McCullough <rhm@PioneerCA.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > > >
> >
>