- From: John Flynn <jflynn12@verizon.net>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:14:31 -0500
- To: "'M. Aaron Bossert'" <mabossert@gmail.com>, <vladimir.alexiev@ontotext.com>
- Cc: "'dbpedia-ontology'" <dbpedia-ontology@lists.sourceforge.net>, "'Linked Data community'" <public-lod@w3.org>, "'SW-forum'" <semantic-web@w3.org>, <dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>, "'John Flynn'" <jflynn12@verizon.net>
It seems the first level effort should be a requirements analysis for the Dbpedia ontology. - What is the level of expressiveness needed in the ontology language- 1st order logic, some level of descriptive logic, or a less expressive language? - Based on the above, what specific ontology implementation language should be used? - Should the Dbpedia ontology leverage an existing upper ontology, such as SUMO, DOLCE, etc? - Should the Dbpedia ontology architecture consist of a basic common core of concepts (possibly in addition to the concepts in a upper ontology) that are then extended by additional domain ontologies? - How will the Dbpedia ontology be managed? - What are the hosting requirements for access loads on the ontology? How many simultaneous users? This is only a cursory cut at Dbpedia ontology requirement issues. But, it seems the community needs to come to grips with this issue before implementing specific changes to the existing ontology. John Flynn http://semanticsimulations.com -----Original Message----- From: M. Aaron Bossert [mailto:mabossert@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 9:13 AM To: <vladimir.alexiev@ontotext.com> Cc: dbpedia-ontology; Linked Data community; SW-forum; <dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Dbpedia-ontology] [Dbpedia-discussion] Advancing the DBpedia ontology Vladimir, I'm thinking of trying to do some stats on the existing ontology and the mappings to see where there is room for improvement. I'm tied up this week with a couple deadlines that I seem to moving towards at greater than light speed, though my progress is not. As soon as I get the rough cut done, I'll share the results with you and maybe we can discuss paths forward? I'm with you on the 30% error rate...that doesn't help anyone. Aaron
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2015 02:15:14 UTC