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

Kingsley,
 
> 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.

Not publicly available yet. There was a buggy first version of "strict",
but we decided to no further work on it for release 3.2. 

Georgi

--
Georgi Kobilarov
Freie Universitšt Berlin
www.georgikobilarov.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kingsley Idehen [mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 6:14 PM
> To: Jens Lehmann
> Cc: public-lod@w3.org; Semantic Web; dbpedia-
> discussion@lists.sourceforge.net; John Goodwin
> Subject: 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's
> challenge
> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great
> prizes
> Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the
> world
> http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
> _______________________________________________
> Dbpedia-discussion mailing list
> Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion

Received on Monday, 17 November 2008 17:23:03 UTC