> > - The DBpedia ontology is really a great resource, but I find it a > little > > unbalanced -- it could use more subclasses, some of them are really > strange > > (for instance, why Women Tennis Association Tournament as the only > subclass > > from Sports Events? Why does it need a subclass of its own? Shouldn't > it > > also have other subclasses?) Are you planning on revising it? I have > my own > > couple of suggestions to make... > > The DBpedia ontology is based on Wikipedia infoboxes, so its coverage > mirrors those of the infoboxes. Which means it sometimes doesn't make > sense from a top-down perspective, but on the other hand it is > grounded in actual modeling of instances by the Wikipedia community, > which makes it far more useful than most other ontologies (IMO).
Yes exactly, our philosophy was to only model concepts in the ontology for which we have data (i.e. infoboxes). I agree that it sometimes doesn't make sense from a top-down perspective. But there will hopefully emerge processes to extend our bottom-up approach towards something more consistent. I think Ontology-design approaches will meet somewhere in the middle. Still I personally prefer a "curated bottom-up approach". Cheers, Georgi -- Georgi Kobilarov Freie Universtität Berlin www.georgikobilarov.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT is a gathering of tech-side developers & brand creativity professionals. Meet the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, & iPhoneDevCamp as they present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian Group, R/GA, & Big Spaceship. http://p.sf.net/sfu/creativitycat-com _______________________________________________ Dbpedia-discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
