OK. I agree with you. But what if one could infer such types not only for
subjects but also for properties (domain / range) and objects playing some
role in an statement. And what if this builds hierarchies of more
generalized / specialized types (or what I call 'Kinds'): more / less
attributes in common, being this kinds the roles played by a resource in
some context (statement). And maybe further aggregating the 'facts' (data)
layer of statements into an information layer (aggregating data, kinds and
resources) and later aggregating knowledge (behavior / state transitions)
from previous layers. All this 'reifying' kinds as resources in a sort of
'grammar' statements.
Its a very early draft but I'd like to document what I'm trying to say
about this models at:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OqsVn6uo0cr6qruzWj9yRASrmvAIAf4HsHuLS2aRSy8/edit?usp=drivesdk
Best regards,
Sebastian.
On Jul 7, 2017 3:11 PM, <jacc...@petrobras.com.br> wrote:
> Yes, it is possible to define classes solely on the properties of the
> subjects, following the philosophic view what a thing IS can only be
> defined based on the properties that you can percieve in it. This may be
> true, but is not useful. Yes, you can say that a Person has a birthDate,
> but the definition of Person cannot rely solely on that, there are other
> things such as Lion that have birthDates and such individuals do not belong
> to the class Person. In other words, the domain of birthDate is not
> Persons. Neither is it applicable to all living beings: what part of a Frog
> or Butterfly lifeline is the 'birth'? When is a Tree "born"? Even in humans
> there is a large debate regarding birth and conception -- when is the
> gamete-ovum-embryo-fetus-baby "alive"? And what about the birth of an era
> or the birth of a project? The domain to which the property birthDate can
> be attached must be properly defined to avoid misuse of the property. Bear
> in mind that DBpedia does have a class Birth, and it is a subclass of
> PersonalEvent, so to be consistent, birthDate SHOULD be applicable only to
> persons, and not to other animals. Property and domain definitions are part
> of the ontology definition, and a lot of them are lacking or
> inappropriately defined DBpedia's ontology. For example, the property date
> has a correct range of xsd:date, but the domain is defined as owl:Thing,
> which means anything may have a date. That is IMHO totally wrong: the
> domain should be an event, not owl:Thing. However, dbo:Event is not exactly
> a event in the proper time-continuum sense, since an the dbPedia Event is
> not puntcual, but durative (e.g. a SportEvent may take days, and a
> SpaceMission may take years. As I said before, it is not easy to get
> everything right. It takes a lot of effort.
>
> An ontology based solely on property aggregation is doomed to be an
> ontology with bad definitions. It reminds me of the case of Plato's
> definition of a human being as a featherless biped (based on its
> properties), and the consequent rebate by Diogenes, who plucked the
> feathers from a cock, brought it to Plato’s school, and said, ‘Here is
> Plato’s man.’
>
> Yes, such property-defined ontologies exist, mainly originated by automata
> that aggregates related terms statistically, but you cannot rely just on
> that to build a useful ontology. You need a Person to check if the result
> makes sense, to be sure you are not making errors such as infering that
> Band and Orchestra are equivalent classes because they have the same
> properties. Sometimes the distinguishing feature is not mapped. (You may
> argue that in this case you should have a single class MusicalGroup, but
> that is another discussion, about granularity and abstract classes.)
>
>
> Cheers.
> =============================================
> Marcelo Jaccoud Amaral
> PETROBRAS
> =============================================
>
> =============================================
> Marcelo Jaccoud Amaral
> PETROBRAS
> Tecnologia da Informação e Comunicações - Arquitetura (TIC/ARQSERV/ARQTIC)
> user-id: bi70
> ramal: 706-7507
>
> tel: +55 (21) 2116-7507
> =============================================
> dum loquimur, fugetir invida aetas: carpe diem, quam minimum credula
> postero.
> -- Horatius
>
>
>
>
>
> De: Sebastian Samaruga <ssama...@gmail.com>
> Para: jacc...@petrobras.com.br
> Cc: Paul Houle <paul.ho...@ontology2.com>, public-lod <
> public-...@w3.org>, John Flynn <jflyn...@verizon.net>, Sebastian Hellmann
> <hellm...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>, DBpedia <Dbpedia-discussion@lists.
> sourceforge.net>, semantic-web at W3C <semantic-...@w3c.org>
> Data: 2017-07-06 15:56
> Assunto: Re: [DBpedia-discussion] Call for Ontology Editor demos
> for DBpedia
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Question: isn't it possible to 'aggregate' classes of subjects in respect
> to the properties / predicates some set of subjects have in common.
> Example: a Person class subjects would have 'birthPlace', 'birthDate' and
> 'name' properties and an Artist subclass would have those properties of
> Person plus 'creatorOf' properties of artworks objects. So a superclass
> would have a superset of the properties of a subclass.
>
> Sorry for my ignorance. Best,
> Sebastian.
>
> On Jul 6, 2017 3:30 PM, <*jacc...@petrobras.com.br*
> <jacc...@petrobras.com.br>> wrote:
> Virtus in medium est.
>
> I agree that by any standard, the DBpedia Ontology is messy, and needs
> some work. Otherwise, it would be only a list of concepts with almost no
> relations between them. These relations (the subconcept hierarchy and other
> relevant relations defined by the authors of the ontology) need to be there
> if the ontology is to be useful to something more than mere documentation.
>
> However, a well sound ontology needs a LOT of work, and the wider the
> scope, the harder it is to get it right. Since DBpedia has no scope
> boundaries, the amount of work to select a suitable foundational ontology
> and expand it would be huge. No, I'm not quoting Trump, it is really huge.
>
> What DBpedia needs is a few abstract notions without commitment to any
> foundational ontology, since the tradeoffs each FO makes would hurt DBpedia
> genericity. For example, different groups may fight years about an exact
> definition of "Software", but most will agree it is a intelectual product,
> such as a romance, a song or a theater play. The ontology should reflect
> that, without getting in details about how software is encoded, versioned,
> reified etc., since these details are important only to applications
> dealing with the concept of software, and not for DBpedia itself.
>
> A few months ago, I complained that ComputerLanguage was not a subconcept
> of Language, and it was promptly corrected, since it is very hard do
> disagree with that. There are a lot of places where such refactoring is
> needed, and I think it would help a lot. Further refining, such as creating
> subclasses of ComputerLanguage, should be avoided in the name of keeping
> the ontology simple and generic. Upper-level classes are needed to sort
> things out, but one should also avoid defining things like disjointness
> because it would lead to stuff like partition completeness and other stuff
> which are clearly not needed for the purposes of DBpedia.
>
> But I agree a cleanup is needed, since a lot of dbo:Things don't make much
> sense.
>
> *Cheers.*
> =============================================
> Marcelo Jaccoud Amaral
> Petrobras, Brazil
> =============================================
>
>
>
>
>
> De: "Paul Houle" <*paul.ho...@ontology2.com*
> <paul.ho...@ontology2.com>>
> Para: "John Flynn" <*jflyn...@verizon.net* <jflyn...@verizon.net>>,
> "'Sebastian Hellmann'" <*hellm...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de*
> <hellm...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>>, "'semantic-web at W3C'" <
> *semantic-...@w3c.org* <semantic-...@w3c.org>>, 'public-lod' <
> *public-...@w3.org* <public-...@w3.org>>, 'DBpedia' <
> *Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net*
> <Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>>
> Data: 2017-07-06 12:25
> Assunto: Re: [DBpedia-discussion] Call for Ontology Editor demos
> for DBpedia
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> I would disagree.
>
> The DBpedia Ontology is not designed to support any specific kind of
> reasoning.
>
> What it *is* designed to do is capture the somewhat structured data that
> exists in Wikipedia. Following the much misunderstood "semantic web", the
> emphasis is on properties first, and then classes second. Think of it as
> a set of baseball or Pokemon cards; the point is not to replicate or even
> closely describe the performance or rules of the game, but to go after the
> long hanging fruit of "things that are easy to ontologize."
>
> There is a real price to pay for this; from the viewpoint of conventional
> application development and introductory computer science, the data is not
> always factually correct or satisfies the invariants required for a
> particular algorithm. Practically that means that you might ask for "US
> States" and get 48 or 51, that somebody like Barry Bonds or Mel Gibson has
> their career much better represented than J. Edgar Hoover or J. Eric S.
> Thompson, and you would probably find that the "tree of life" in DBpedia
> is not really a tree.
>
> If you need to reasoning in some domain you need to find some area you are
> willing to pump the entropy out of, create the data structures appropriate
> for what you want to do, and possibly incorporate data from DBpedia,
> doing whatever cleanup is necessary. That's not different at all from the
> situation of "doing reasoning over reasoning over data collected by a large
> organization".
>
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "John Flynn" <*jflyn...@verizon.net* <jflyn...@verizon.net>>
> To: "'Sebastian Hellmann'" <*hellm...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de*
> <hellm...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>>; "'semantic-web at W3C'" <
> *semantic-...@w3c.org* <semantic-...@w3c.org>>; "'public-lod'" <
> *public-...@w3.org* <public-...@w3.org>>; "'DBpedia'" <
> *Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net*
> <Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>>
> Sent: 7/5/2017 11:43:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [DBpedia-discussion] Call for Ontology Editor demos for
> DBpedia
>
> I have long been curious about the DBpedia ontology structure so I just
> took a look at the ontology represented in (
> *https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/375401/dbo_no_mappings.nt*
> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/375401/dbo_no_mappings.nt>) as
> referenced in the email below.
> I normally start the evaluation of an ontology by looking at the top-down
> class relationships. So, I did a search for the classes that were listed as
> a direct subclass of owl#Thing to get a general idea of the organization of
> the DBpedia class structure.
> To say the least, I was sorely disappointed. Here are a few of the DBpedia
> classes that are direct subclasses of owl#Thing: Food, Media, Work, Blazon,
> Altitude, Language, Currency, Statistic, Diploma, Award, Agent,
> PublicService, Disease, GrossDomesticProdutPerCapita, ElectionDiagram,
> Demographics, Relationship, Medicine, List, BioMolecule. I gave up after
> this small sample. It is obvious that the DBpedia community needs to worry
> a lot more about the structure of the ontology itself rather than focusing
> on selecting a new editor. A working group needs to be established to go
> back to the drawing board and look at the DBpedia ontology form the top
> down. It certainly doesn't make much sense as it is currently structured.
>
> John Flynn
> *http://semanticsimulations.com* <http://semanticsimulations.com/>
>
>
> *From:* Sebastian Hellmann [mailto:*hellm...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de*
> <hellm...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 05, 2017 10:43 AM
> *To:* 'semantic-web at W3C'; public-lod; DBpedia
> *Subject:* [DBpedia-discussion] Call for Ontology Editor demos for DBpedia
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> we are preparing a switch from the mappings wiki (
> *http://mappings.dbpedia.org* <http://mappings.dbpedia.org/>) to another
> ontology editor and started to collect requirements/tools here:
>
>
> *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HwtJJ3jIlrQAPwHYhvpw4a4Z4hZorTGaZTB8Bq8Y-TI/edit*
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HwtJJ3jIlrQAPwHYhvpw4a4Z4hZorTGaZTB8Bq8Y-TI/edit>
>
> We already have a demo for Webprotege thanks to Ismael Rodriguez, our GSoC
> student. As we are lacking time and resources, we will probably only
> consider editors with a running demo, so the community can try it.
> Our main interest is of course to manage the DBpedia core ontology and
> push any mappings to other ontologies in separate files. So we provide a
> core version for demo purposes created with:
> rapper -g dbpedia_2016-10.nt | grep -v '\(
> *http://schema.org\|http://www.wikidata.org\|http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org\*
> <http://schema.org/%7Chttp:/www.wikidata.org/%7Chttp:/www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/>)'
> > dbo_no_mappings.nt
>
> *https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/375401/dbo_no_mappings.nt*
> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/375401/dbo_no_mappings.nt>
> (I hope that the regex didn't kick out anything essential or broke any
> axioms...)
>
> We would be very happy, if anyone from the semantic web community would
> make a demo with their favorite editor and add a link to the Google Doc and
> post a short message on the DBpedia discussion list[1] or on slack
> *https://dbpedia.slack.com/* <https://dbpedia.slack.com/>.
>
> This would help us to make a more informed decision. The next DBpedia Dev
> online meeting will be on 2nd of August 14:00 (each first Wednesday per
> month). Presentations of editors are also welcome. We will also discuss the
> editor question during the DBpedia meeting in Amsterdam, co-located with
> SEMANTiCS on 14.9. *http://wiki.dbpedia.org/meetings/Amsterdam2017*
> <http://wiki.dbpedia.org/meetings/Amsterdam2017>
>
> Thank you for your help!
>
> [1] *https://sourceforge.net/projects/dbpedia/lists/dbpedia-discussion*
> <https://sourceforge.net/projects/dbpedia/lists/dbpedia-discussion>
>
> --
> All the best,
> Sebastian Hellmann
>
> Director of Knowledge Integration and Linked Data Technologies (KILT)
> Competence Center
> at the Institute for Applied Informatics (InfAI) at Leipzig University
> Executive Director of the DBpedia Association
> Projects: *http://dbpedia.org* <http://dbpedia.org/>, *http://nlp2rdf.org*
> <http://nlp2rdf.org/>, *http://linguistics.okfn.org*
> <http://linguistics.okfn.org/>, *https://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt*
> <http://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt>
> Homepage: *http://aksw.org/SebastianHellmann*
> <http://aksw.org/SebastianHellmann>
> Research Group: *http://aksw.org* <http://aksw.org/>---------------
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! *http://sdm.link/slashdot*
> <http://sdm.link/slashdot>_______________________________________________
> DBpedia-discussion mailing list
> *DBpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net*
> <DBpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>
> *https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion*
> <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion>
>
>
>
>
>
> "O emitente desta mensagem é responsável por seu conteúdo e endereçamento.
> Cabe ao destinatário cuidar quanto ao tratamento adequado. Sem a devida
> autorização, a divulgação, a reprodução, a distribuição ou qualquer outra
> ação em desconformidade com as normas internas do Sistema Petrobras são
> proibidas e passíveis de sanção disciplinar, cível e criminal."
>
>
>
> "The sender of this message is responsible for its content and addressing.
> The receiver shall take proper care of it. Without due authorization, the
> publication, reproduction, distribution or the performance of any other
> action not conforming to Petrobras System internal policies and procedures
> is forbidden and liable to disciplinary, civil or criminal sanctions."
>
>
>
> "El emisor de este mensaje es responsable por su contenido y
> direccionamiento. Cabe al destinatario darle el tratamiento adecuado. Sin
> la debida autorización, su divulgación, reproducción, distribución o
> cualquier otra acción no conforme a las normas internas del Sistema
> Petrobras están prohibidas y serán pasibles de sanción disciplinaria, civil
> y penal."
>
>
>
>
> "O emitente desta mensagem é responsável por seu conteúdo e endereçamento.
> Cabe ao destinatário cuidar quanto ao tratamento adequado. Sem a devida
> autorização, a divulgação, a reprodução, a distribuição ou qualquer outra
> ação em desconformidade com as normas internas do Sistema Petrobras são
> proibidas e passíveis de sanção disciplinar, cível e criminal."
>
>
>
> "The sender of this message is responsible for its content and addressing.
> The receiver shall take proper care of it. Without due authorization, the
> publication, reproduction, distribution or the performance of any other
> action not conforming to Petrobras System internal policies and procedures
> is forbidden and liable to disciplinary, civil or criminal sanctions."
>
>
>
> "El emisor de este mensaje es responsable por su contenido y
> direccionamiento. Cabe al destinatario darle el tratamiento adecuado. Sin
> la debida autorización, su divulgación, reproducción, distribución o
> cualquier otra acción no conforme a las normas internas del Sistema
> Petrobras están prohibidas y serán pasibles de sanción disciplinaria, civil
> y penal."
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
DBpedia-discussion mailing list
DBpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
