Re: indoor / interior ontology

Martin, please read the emails carefully before replying:

>>PC (Philipp Cimiano ) "Hi there,

 I have a short question: is anybody aware of an ontology modelling
interiors of houses, modelling for example the objects, furniture etc.
typically contained in indoor rooms, etc.?

Thanks and best regards,

Philipp."

my reply was a one line reply:

>> AGC "You could check here, this repository probably has some ontos for
that.

http://ontologies.informatik.uni-bremen.de/"


That was ALL I wrote on my email -read it carefully, wont take too long to
single out the "probably" in it. I am sure you can carefully read your own
email. As for promoting, I am not promoting anything, should u wish to try
the URL I gave... good; if u dont want to do so, just as good. I rarely
participate in this mailing list, I have hardly advertised any tool. As for
the tool...  This was a simple response to someone who sent an email asking
for an ontology, where to find one. As for the tool; I wish it could be
called "my tool". should u have read carefully, and inspected the "tool" you
would have realized this is a bioportal installation -just happens to be
used in a non biomedical domain. Did Philip find something he could re-use?
I have no idea -not for me to say.

Your email was very specific, targeting "my tool", this comes from your
email: "To be frank, I think your tool does currently more harm than good".

As for the rest of your email, not commenting as "sinners" and "convert" are
rather alien to me.







On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> wrote:

> Hi Alexander:
>
> Philipp asked for an ontology for a topic. You said: "Try my tool." I said
> "Your tool gives bad advice when used for a task similar to Philipp's".
>
> No matter what the real aim of your ontology repository is, you suggested
> to use it for finding a suitable ontology. And I say that when someone
> searches for concepts readily defined in broadly adopted, valid Web
> ontologies, then your tool should return those. In 3 of 3 tests, your tool
> fails to give good results.
>
> We find promotions of tools frequently on this list, and it is perfectly
> okay to bring in your own work into a suitable discussion. But then again
> please accept my frank comment that sending someone to try the search
> function of your repository for finding a suitable ontology for a given
> topic is BAD advice.
>
> My criticism will likely hold for the search functionality in many other
> ontology repositories.
>
> Part of the problem of Semantic Web research is that immature bits and
> pieces of a potential solution are advertised as if they were a solution to
> a given problem. Then potential adopters try, fail, and are lost for the
> vision of the Semantic Web.
>
> We may all be and all have been sinners in this sense over the past decade,
> but it is crucial to stop and convert.
>
> Best
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
> On 04.12.2010, at 15:44, Alexander Garcia Castro wrote:
>
>  Dear  Martin, your email is a nice idea but
>>
>>  "my tool", ORATE, is just an ontology repository. should u have ideas for
>> improving ontology repositories there are venues such as the Open Ontology
>> Repository, ONTOLOG; recently there were two workshops on major conferences
>> (ESWC, ISWC) addressing the problem of ontology repositories. I am sure the
>> CfP must have fallen in your inbox at least once as both CfP were
>> distributed in this mailing list.
>>
>>  MH: 2. Trying your tool for "blog entry" or "post" does not yield SIOC,
>> "person" does not yield FOAF, and neither "product" nor "store" points to
>> GoodRelations.
>>
>> It has never been within the objectives of our work to point to products
>> or "storing points to GoodRelations". Again, Martin, as I can see that your
>> "GoodRelations" are a cornerstone in the semantic web -one artifact without
>> which relationships will hardly be achieved, I suggest you raise these
>> issues in the form of a paper, prototype, etc. illustrating how could
>> ontology repositories full fill your needs, and those of the semantic web. I
>> am sure we will all find your enlightenment interesting.
>>
>> MH: To be frank, I think your tool does currently more harm than good
>> (same as many other premature ontology search tools), because they send
>> potential adopters of semantic technology into the completely wrong
>> direction
>>
>> I am not sure how to answer this, should it be sufficient to say that the
>> tool is not a search tool, as I said before it is a repository. The "good"
>> that may come from it depends on: how u use it, and how u extend it -yes
>> Martin, extending it is actually possible, in this way you may get it to
>> work and address your specific needs.
>>
>> To be frank, your comments are over the tone and do more harm than good
>> (same as whenever people are quick typing) because your comments address a
>> completely different point to that of "my tool". I suggest you do some
>> reading about ontology repositories, propose the modifications you consider,
>> develop the corresponding prototype and then start typing on mailing lists.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Martin Hepp <
>> martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
>> Hi Alexander:
>>
>> Your tool is a nice idea, but ...
>>
>> 1. Ontologies are not just specification documents available somewhere on
>> the Web, but the combination of such a specification and an
>> ecosystem/community. Searching for an ontology without considering the
>> ecosystems of candidate matches makes no sense. It's like Google without
>> PageRank and random ordering of results.
>>
>> 2. Trying your tool for "blog entry" or "post" does not yield SIOC,
>> "person" does not yield FOAF, and neither "product" nor "store" points to
>> GoodRelations.
>>
>> To be frank, I think your tool does currently more harm than good (same as
>> many other premature ontology search tools), because they send potential
>> adopters of semantic technology into the completely wrong direction.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03.12.2010, at 16:30, Alexander Garcia Castro wrote:
>>
>> You could check here, this repository probably has some ontos for that.
>>
>> http://ontologies.informatik.uni-bremen.de/
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Philipp Cimiano <
>> cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>>  I have a short question: is anybody aware of an ontology modelling
>> interiors of houses, modelling for example the objects, furniture etc.
>> typically contained in indoor rooms, etc.?
>>
>> Thanks and best regards,
>>
>> Philipp.
>>
>> --
>> Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
>> Semantic Computing Group
>> Excellence Cluster - Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
>> University of Bielefeld
>>
>> Phone: +49 521 106 12249
>> Fax: +49 521 106 12412
>> Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>>
>> Room H-127
>> Morgenbreede 39
>> 33615 Bielefeld
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alexander Garcia
>> http://www.alexandergarcia.name/
>> http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/75943.html
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexgarciac
>> Postal address:
>> Alexander Garcia, Tel.: +49 421 218 64211
>> Universität Bremen
>> Enrique-Schmidt-Str. 5
>> D-28359 Bremen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alexander Garcia
>> http://www.alexandergarcia.name/
>> http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/75943.html
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexgarciac
>> Postal address:
>> Alexander Garcia, Tel.: +49 421 218 64211
>> Universität Bremen
>> Enrique-Schmidt-Str. 5
>> D-28359 Bremen
>>
>
>


-- 
Alexander Garcia
http://www.alexandergarcia.name/
http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/75943.html
http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexgarciac
Postal address:
Alexander Garcia, Tel.: +49 421 218 64211
Universität Bremen
Enrique-Schmidt-Str. 5
D-28359 Bremen