Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

Jens Lehmann wrote:
> 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
>
>
>   
Jens,

What's the URL of the strict one?

We are building a DBpedia installer for Virtuoso, so at the very least I 
want the users of this installer to have choice of "strict" or "loose" 
infobox extraction.

-- 


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com

Received on Monday, 17 November 2008 17:14:27 UTC