W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2010

Re: Any reason for ontology reuse?

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 07:21:58 -0500
Message-ID: <4CFF7866.2020304@openlinksw.com>
To: Martijn van der Plaat <martijn@profec.nl>
CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-lod@w3.org
On 12/8/10 5:52 AM, Martijn van der Plaat wrote:
> Thank you all for the detailed comments, but in my initial message I
> didn't mean a "formal list" from an organization like the W3C or other
> standardization bodies as some of you mentioned. I was just looking
> for an indexing service (API) where I can find properties and classes
> based on popularity with conservation of the decentralized approach of
> the Web. A concept is not popular due to standardization or applicable
> in every language and every domain perspective, but is popular because
> it simply works or because the popularity is caused by powerful
> organizations like Facebook,Google,etc who accepted these
> vocabularies/ontologies in their system.
> I think the API I talk about should be included into eg. ontology
> editors. I can imagine a simple string search possibility to find a
> popular ontology/property/class and easily reuse it into your own
> dataset?

Here is one place to lookup Classes or Properties, with results that 
include Entity Ranking.

1. http://lod.openlinksw.com -- which also has a SPARQL endpoint so you 
can use bif:contains as part of query pattern
2. http://lod.openlinksw.com/fct/facet.vsp?cmd=load&fsq_id=191140 -- 
Classes associated with pattern: "Person"
3. http://lod.openlinksw.com/fct/facet.vsp?cmd=load&fsq_id=191141 -- 
Classes associated with pattern: "Music"
- DBMS hosted Faceted Browser Service APIs .

> Cheers,
> Martijn
> 2010/12/8 Martin Hepp<martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>:
>> In general, I think that the Semantic Web must use a decentralized approach
>> for the definition and adoption of conceptual elements, same as the Web uses
>> decentralized, fault-tolerant approaches as a fundamental principle. So
>> calling for standardization bodies to maintain "authoritative" vocabularies
>> will not work at Web Scale, IMO. At least, standards bodies may be to slow
>> to provide ontologies and ontology updates (INCOTERMS, for instance, updates
>> it's definition of trade terms only once per decade)
>> A few related papers:
>> 1. Possible Ontologies: How Reality Constrains the Development of Relevant
>> Ontologies, in: IEEE Internet Computing, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 90-96, Jan-Feb
>> 2007
>> PDF: http://www.heppnetz.de/files/IEEE-IC-PossibleOntologies-published.pdf
>> 2. E-Business Vocabularies as a Moving Target: Quantifying the Conceptual
>> Dynamics in Domains, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on
>> Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (EKAW2008), September 29 -
>> October 3, 2008 (forthcoming), Acitrezza, Italy, Springer LNCS, Vol. 5268,
>> pp. 388-403.
>> PDF: http://www.heppnetz.de/files/ConceptualDynamics-EKAW2008-CRC-final6.pdf
>> Best
>> Martin



Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Wednesday, 8 December 2010 12:24:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:19 UTC