W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > February 2015

Re: Advancing the DBpedia ontology

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 09:37:48 -0800
Message-ID: <54EF59EC.4030402@gmail.com>
To: vladimir.alexiev@ontotext.com, 'dbpedia-ontology' <dbpedia-ontology@lists.sourceforge.net>
CC: 'Linked Data community' <public-lod@w3.org>, 'SW-forum' <semantic-web@w3.org>, dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
Hash: SHA1

Sure, the data and the ontology have to line up.

However, just because all the windmills in Wikipedia happen to be buildings
doesn't mean that windmill should be subcategory of building in DBpedia.
Similarly, if the DBpedia class Church is a subcategory of buildings then
there is pressure to consider a church to be a building.

Some of this is just (the perjorative sense of) semantics.  What is wrong
with defining Church to be a building that is also a place of Christian
worship?  That's why I suggested that DBpedia classes be tied to Wikipedia
articles.  (Wikipedia does identify churches with buildings, but at least
using this the informal definition of a church would let DBpedia
contributors know what a DBpedia church should be.)


On 02/24/2015 08:15 PM, Vladimir Alexiev wrote:
>> From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com] I agree
>> that there are problems with the mappings.  However, how can the 
>> mappings be fixed without fixing the ontology?
> I could ask you a converse question: ** how can you make an accurate
> ontology without looking at the data? And to look at the data, you need
> mappings (if not to execute then to document what you've examined).
> But more constructively:
> There is a large number of mapping problems independent of the ontology. 
> E.g. when a Singer (Person) is mapped to Band (Organisation) due to wrong
> check of a field "background", I don’t care how the classes are
> organized, I already hurt that the direct type is wrong.
> Of course, having a good ontology would help! E.g.
> https://github.com/dbpedia/mappings-tracker/issues/49: some guy named
> Admin made in 2010 two props "occupation" and "personFunction" with
> nearly identical role & history. - No documentation of course. -
> occupation has 100-250 uses, personFunction has 20-50 uses. - Which of
> the two to use? - More importantly, which have already been used right,
> and which are wrong?
> I suspect that most uses of occupation are as a DataProp, even though
> it's declared as an ObjectProp.
> DBpedia adopts an Object/DataProp Dichotomy that IMHO does not work
> well. See
> http://vladimiralexiev.github.io/pres/20150209-dbpedia/dbpedia-problems-long.html#sec-3-2
Version: GnuPG v1

Received on Thursday, 26 February 2015 17:38:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:41 UTC