- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 15:30:30 +0100
- To: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@cnr.it>
- Cc: Semantic Web Interest Group <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 15 May 2008, at 13:17, Aldo Gangemi wrote: >>> or a city as from Cyc to a wikipedia article of that city (as done >>> in DBpedia). >> >> DBpedia doesn't contain any owl:sameAs statements between Cyc >> resources and Wikipedia articles. > > See the extended datasets (http://wiki.dbpedia.org/Downloads) for > "Links to Cyc" at: > http://downloads.dbpedia.org/preview.php?file=3.0_sl_en_sl_links_cyc_en.nt.bz2 These are links from Cyc to DBpedia resources. DBpedia resources are *not* Wikipedia articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin identifies a Wikipedia article, a web page, about a city. http://dbpedia.org/resource/Berlin identifies a city, not an article or web page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin is thus a page whose topic is http://dbpedia.org/resource/Berlin . An article about a city is of course not the same as a city. This difference is explicitly modelled in DBpedia. >> [snip] >>> It is reasonable, as Richard Cyganiak wrote at the time, that we >>> have to work around the quirks [2], nonetheless, if there is no >>> real need, why should we work around the quirks caused by a >>> pointless identity assumption? >> >> I feel misquoted. In the original discussion [1], I encouraged the >> use of owl:sameAs between three different definitions (Geonames, >> GEMET and DBpedia) of the concept of a “canal”. I did *not* >> advocate to gloss over the difference between a thing and a >> document about that thing, as you imply by your examples above. To >> the contrary, I have insisted on this difference many times, e.g. >> in [2]. > > That's ok. I used an indirect quotation of yours from Bernard > Vatant's blog. > Talking of content, on the sameness of Geonames and DBpedia articles > I have anyway a different intuition: > Geonames refer to geographical locations, Yes. > DBpedia entries to articles, No. DBpedia refers to the *topic* of articles, which are geographical locations in some cases. If you look up any DBpedia identifier on the Semantic Web, you will find RDF statements to hat effect. Richard > which on their turn can refer to geographic locations > >> At the end of the day, we have to keep in mind that we are talking >> about the Web. Statements will be subjective, inconsistent and >> wrong. This also applies to owl:sameAs statements. They are claims, >> not facts. Deal with it. > > Agreed. I do not want to be picky about that: SW is Web, and errors > are life. > Just there is no need to use owl:sameAs in many cases, and at least > in LOD large projects, this can be avoided easily. > > Thanks for clarifying > Aldo > > > _________________________________ > > Aldo Gangemi > > Senior Researcher > Laboratory for Applied Ontology > Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technology > National Research Council (ISTC-CNR) > Via Nomentana 56, 00161, Roma, Italy > Tel: +390644161535 > Fax: +390644161513 > aldo.gangemi@cnr.it > > http://www.loa-cnr.it/gangemi.html > > icq# 108370336 > > skype aldogangemi > >
Received on Friday, 16 May 2008 14:31:51 UTC