- From: Jens Lehmann <lehmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:00:11 +0100
- To: John Goodwin <John.Goodwin@ordnancesurvey.co.uk>
- CC: Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>, public-lod@w3.org, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
Hello John, John Goodwin wrote: > > Thanks Chris and team for all your hard work getting this done. I do, > however, have a few comments regarding the OWL ontology. I think in > general the use of domain and range is perhaps a bit "dubious" in that > for many things I think it is overly specified. I can imagine anyone > re-using the Dbpedia properties getting some unexpected inferences from > the domain and range restrictions. Also the range restriction seem to be > done as an OWL intersection so if, for example, something has a > publisher x then x will be inferred to be both a Company and a Person > which is probably not what you want. Personally, in all but a few cases, > I'd be tempted to generalise or just remove the domain/range > restrictions. Any thoughts? We specified the domains and ranges as disjunctions of classes (not intersection). See the W3C specification of owl:unionOf [1]. The domain and range axioms help to structure DBpedia and clarify the meaning of certain properties. While there is room for improvement, it is not an option to remove all of them. Currently, there are two versions of the infobox extraction: a loose one and a strict one. In the strict one, it is guaranteed that the data complies to the ranges specified in the ontology schema. Currently, only the loose (probably inconsistent) one is provided. Kind regards, Jens [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#owl_unionOf -- Dipl. Inf. Jens Lehmann Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig Homepage: http://www.jens-lehmann.org GPG Key: http://jens-lehmann.org/jens_lehmann.asc
Received on Monday, 17 November 2008 17:00:53 UTC