I have a somewhat mixed feeling regarding the organization of Wikipedia. It is
true that if you use it as a human, you will find what you need in a reasonable
time (usually using search box and following direct category links). But from
the POV of a KB engineer, its organization is very far from being perfect. Let
me just give you an example: administrative categories in Wikipedia. These are
categories that should not be normally displayed to the end-user. You would
expect that there is one, maybe two means of expressing that given category is
administrative (e.g. a container category and a template). But there are at
least several ways of stating that a given category is administrative -
sometimes this information is only stated in the contents of the category.
Another example - eponymous categories. You have Cat_main template, which is
used to state that there is a corresponding article for a given category. You
also have Main template, which has similar meaning. But in majority of the
situations the link between the cat. and article is only provided as a link at
the beginning of the category contents or as the first item on the list of
category articles.
So I have doubts regarding construction of a well-structured ontology that
would emerge e.g. from the usage of infobox templates in Wikipedia. I am not
saying that Cyc or Umbel are perfect (they are not), there are also
duplications and unnecessary classes there. But Cyc has been constructed for
more than 20 years and I believe that many of the problems we are discussing
here were already discussed during Cyc creation. Let me just say that you have
3 concepts in Cyc that correspond to "church":
* #$ChurchService
* #$Church-Building
* #$Church-LocalCongregation
I am not saying that the mapping we will produce in May or June will provide
the correct classes in all the cases (this is just not feasible), but I am
saying that the necessary concepts are already present in Cyc (and Umbel). And
if they are really missing we will provided them and attach to the rich
structure of Cyc/Umbel.
Kind regards,
Aleksander
---- Wł. Śr, 16 kwi 2014 06:22:44 +0200 Peter F.
Patel-Schneider<peter.patel-schnei...@nuance.com> napisał(a) ----
I agree that it seems harder to crowdsource ontologies. However, Wikipedia
seems to have a half-decent organization, so maybe it is possible. My view is
that Wikipedia is succeeding, and not just in overall organization, because
there are Wikipedia editors that challenge and remove incorrect and incoherent
information and also spend time oncleanup tasks. I think that any
crowdsourced artifact needs to have participants that spend considerable time
on these tasks.
It appears that the DBpedia ontologyhas not been subject to much of this kind
of activity. Just today I went through the DBpedia class taxnomy and marked
classes that were arguably misplaced. I found over 50 out of about 500
non-sport classes(and the sport classes probably all need some attention).
The misplacement of DBpediaclasses is not justa problem with the DBpedia
ontology, of course, as the DBpedia taxonomy is used to generate type
statements for all DBpedia resources. The only aspect of DBpedia that makes
this not quite so severe a problem is that many of the misplaced classes have
few or no instances. However, some of the misplaced classes, e.g.,
FictionalCharacter, ChessPlayer, PokerPlayer, Saint, Religious, Monarch,
Medician, Galaxy, Restaurant, Country, Grape, and Venue, have a significant
number of instances.
peter
On 04/15/2014 07:16 PM, Mike Bergman wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> My observation is that crowdsourced knowledge bases (namely, Wikipedia,
> DBpedia, schema.org, Freebase, etc) can be excellent sources for the
> description and characterization of things and entities, but the
structures
> that may be derived from them will by definition be incoherent at the TBox
> level.
>
> Exhortations to many contributors to be more coherent at a structural
level
> are not likely, I believe, to meet with much success. The motivations of
> contributors and editors are most often local within the KB space. Thus,
in
> microcosm, many parts of these KBs can look pretty good, but when the
scope
> extends more broadly across the KB, the coherence breaks down. There
aren't
> many advocates for structure-wide coherence.
>
> As an advocate for structure-wide coherence and one who is not afraid to
> wade into the fray, perhaps you can work some useful magic. I'm dubious,
but
> I truly wish you luck.
>
> Our approach, which we have been working on for some years episodically,
> with another episode due shortly, is to use a coherent structure (UMBEL,
in
> our approach, which is a faithful, simplified subset of Cyc) to provide
the
> TBox, and then to find defensible ways to map the entity and concept
> information in crowdsourced KBs to that structure.
>
> We have been talking about this for so long that it is time for us to
> complete our initial development and put something forward that you and
> others can similarly scrutinize. We hope to have something useful by this
> summer.
>
> Thanks, Mike
>
> On 4/15/2014 6:55 PM, Patel-Schneider, Peter wrote:
>> Hmm.
>>
>> Well, perhaps one could argue that there should be no hierarchy at all.
>>
>> Using the DBpedia ontology does commit you to a lot of things, many of
them
>> quite questionable. For example, in the DBpedia ontology churches are
>> buildings, which is not true for many churches, and not even true for
the
>> physical location associated with many churches. This is one of the
things
>> that I think needs to be changed.
>>
>> peter
>>
>>
>> On Apr 15, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Paul Houle <ontolo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I try not to get hung up on the idea of having one right hierarchy
but
>>> assume most end users will need to interpret the types that exist
in
>>> the way that makes sense for what they are doing.
>>>
>>> The idea of foaf:Agent, which is a superclass of both person and
>>> organization, is a powerful concept because of properties shared by
>>> these two "things"; for instance, either can be a party to a
>>> lawsuit. Even in music you could say a brand like "Michael Jackson"
>>> is a team effort.
>>>
>>> On the other hand some people want :Flutist to be a subclass of
>>> :Person and it makes sense to say one person who plays the flute
is a
>>> :Flutist but you can't say that a trio that all plays the flute is
a
>>> :Flutist. Everybody has some theorem they expect the system to
prove
>>> and they won't accept your axiom set unless you can prove their
>>> theorem with it.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Patel-Schneider, Peter
>>> <peter.patel-schnei...@nuance.com> wrote:
>>>> schema.org is controlled by the schema.org partners, Google,
Yahoo!,
>>>> Bing, and Yandex. Contributions from the community are
accepted, but are
>>>> vetted before being added to schema.org
>>>>
>>>> See http://schema.org for more information.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One problem with alignment to schema.org is that the formal
meaning of
>>>> the schema.org ontology is unusual and not fully explained.
>>>>
>>>> peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 14, 2014, at 10:08 PM, 小出 誠二
<seijikoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Peter
>>>>>
>>>>> For eyes of ontologists, it is well known that DBpedia
ontology is
>>>>> incorrect, but I have never check about the contents of
schema.org. Thank
>>>>> you for the info.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am planning to correct trustable ontologies like
schema.org, but I do not
>>>>> know how to revise or advice the contents of schema.org.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone know it? Or does anyone have interest the
portal sites of
>>>>> trustable ontologies?
>>>>>
>>>>> Seiji Koide
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Patel-Schneider, Peter
[mailto:peter.patel-schnei...@nuance.com]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 1:50 PM
>>>>> To: dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
>>>>> Subject: [Dbpedia-discussion] probably incorrect mapping
to schema.org from
>>>>> MusicalArtist
>>>>>
>>>>> The ontology says that MusicalArtist is a subclass of
>>>>> schema.org:MusicGroup.
>>>>>
>>>>> This seemed very odd to me, but then I looked at
schema.org and noticed
>>>>> that
>>>>> schema.org:MusicGroup can also be for *solo* artists.
However,
>>>>> MusicalArtist is for any musical artist, not just
soloists. So this mapping
>>>>> still looks incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> peter
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
>> "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and
their
>> applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
>> this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dbpedia-discussion mailing list
>> Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
"Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech
_______________________________________________
Dbpedia-discussion mailing list
Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
"Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech
_______________________________________________
Dbpedia-discussion mailing list
Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
