W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2013

Re: Ontology for Restaurants

From: Peter Brooks <peter.h.m.brooks@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 22:03:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFtB7BR=_p+Xnq1PEv0pvXCq3P8uArjJCnv2wSNyjmeeQm8Pwg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cristiano Longo <longo@dmi.unict.it>
Cc: Sebastian Tramp <mail@sebastian.tramp.name>, s.rizza@gmail.com, semantic-web@w3.org
On 13 July 2013 21:45, Cristiano Longo <longo@dmi.unict.it> wrote:
> The added value of http://schema.org/Recipe in semantic terms seems quite
> scarce. For example, the range of ingredients is just Text.
>
Given that almost every living thing and many thousands of derived
compounds as well as inorganic compounds can be ingredients, an
ontology of ingredients would be quite difficult to put together.

Not only that, but many ingredients of recipes are recipes themselves
- in a moussaka, for example, bechamel sauce is a dish all on its own,
as well as an ingredient. Then Solanum esculentum is known as
aubergine, egg-plant, brinjal, melongene, or guinea squash and, is a
species of nightshade - so a warning that 10% of people have an
allergy to it might be useful. A good ontology would also note that
it's a good source of potassium.

It might also be wise to have a warning that this particular
ingredient contains the largest concentration of nicotine than any
other edible plant.

Quite a few different properties, and that's before you consider
whether the mode of preparation is a relationship or an ingredient.

I wonder how an ingredient ontology would deal with a copper bowl that
is, apparently, essential if you want the best whipped egg-white.
Received on Saturday, 13 July 2013 20:04:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:53 UTC