Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] [Dbpedia-ontology] Advancing the DBpedia ontology

I agree with Aaron and this the reason we started this effort. Even a small
improvement in quality through the ontology could have a big impact.
Improving the ontology should be an iterative process that will take into
account both the data and the mappings. However, some decisions/actions can
be made independent of the data or the mappings

@John Flynn, all the issues you mention are valid and we are working on a
more formal description of the requirements that will cover at least some
of them
@Mike Bergman, I think everyone agrees that strict schemas do not work well
in crouwdsourced data and we need to define some trade-offs

@all, looks like this thread got too big and too focused on DBpedia. I
suggest we continue the discussion on the dbpedia-discussion /
dbpedia-ontology mailing lists

Best,
Dimitris


On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:07 AM, M. Aaron Bossert <mabossert@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The one thing I would say is that while I agree in general...the one thing
> that keeps eating away at me is that there is tremendous potential in
> dbpedia for bigger questions to be answered, but the more advanced
> analytics require that some level of sanity exists within the
> ontology...much more so than now.  As an example, I have created several
> different applications for customers that are based on dbpedia...one of
> which is a recommender system.  The level of effort required to simply say
> (in SPARQL, of course) "show me every living person that is highly similar
> to person X, excluding politicians athletes and actors" is quite a tedious
> thing to do until after I have "fixed" all the erroneous and missing
> properties associated with "things" in general...which person class do I
> focus on?  Which living people?  Which politicians?  Perhaps legislators?
> It gets pretty ugly, pretty quickly.
>
> I'm not sure that the ontology needs to be completely rewritten, but
> surely it can't be that difficult to clean up a bit with a little common
> sense logic applied such as if a "thing" has a death date (never mind which
> one), then surely they are not a living person...or if they hold a
> political office, surely they must be a politician.
>
> Aaron
>
> > On Feb 26, 2015, at 00:19, Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > My thoughts are for DBpedia to stay close to the mission of extracting
> quality data from Wikipedia, and no more. That quality extraction is an
> essential grease to the linked data ecosystem, and of much major benefit to
> anyone needful of broadly useful structured data.
> >
> > I think both Wikipedia and DBpedia have shown that crowdsourced entity
> information and data works beautifully, but the ontologies or knowledge
> graphs (category structures) that emerge from these effort are mush.
> >
> > DBpedia, or schema.org from that standpoint, should not be concerned so
> much about coherent schema, computable knowledge graphs, ontological
> defensibility, or any such T-Box considerations. They have demonstrably
> shown themselves to not be strong in these suits.
> >
> > No one hears the term "folksonomy" any more because all initial admirers
> have seen no crowd-sourced schema to really work (from dmoz to Freebase). A
> schema is not something to be universally consented, but a framework by
> which to understand a given domain. Yet the conundrum is, to organize
> anything globally, some form of conceptual agreement about a top-level
> schema is required.
> >
> > Look to what DBpedia now does strongly: extract vetted structured data
> from Wikipedia for broader consumption on the Web of data.
> >
> > My counsel is to not let DBpedia's mission stray into questions of
> conceptual "truth". Keep the ontology flat and simple with no aspirations
> other than "just the facts, ma'am".
> >
> > Thanks, Mike
> >
> >> On 2/25/2015 10:33 PM, M. Aaron Bossert wrote:
> >> John,
> >>
> >> You make a good point...but are we talking about a complete tear-down
> of the existing ontology?  I'm not necessarily opposed to that notion, by
> want to make sure that we are all in agreement as to the scope of work, as
> it were.
> >>
> >> What would be the implications of a complete redo?  Would the benefit
> outweigh the impact to the community?  I would assume that there would be a
> ripple effect across all other LOD datasets that map to dbpedia, correct?
> Or am I grossly overstating/misunderstanding how interconnected the
> ontology is?
> >>
> >> Vladimir, your thoughts?
> >>
> >> Aaron
> >>
> >>> On Feb 25, 2015, at 21:14, John Flynn <jflynn12@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website,
> sponsored
> >> by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub
> for all
> >> things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership
> blogs to
> >> news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the
> >> conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Dbpedia-discussion mailing list
> >> Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website,
> sponsored
> by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for
> all
> things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs
> to
> news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the
> conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
> _______________________________________________
> Dbpedia-discussion mailing list
> Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
>



-- 
Kontokostas Dimitris