Please read "the Entity linking is for Entities in the Text"
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:20 AM, Bhoomin Pandya <bhoominpan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Rupert: > > I agree with you that: > 1. the Entity linking is for Entities the Text > 2. the Categorization is at Content or Pages Level > > Could you help me with following please: > > Does Categorization at content or page level mean categorization at URI level? > > Are "context' along with the triples (N-Quads) allowed in Stanbol > > Best Regards, > > Bhoomin Pandya > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Maatari Daniel Okouya > <okouy...@yahoo.fr> wrote: >> I understand better. >> >> I think the key sentence here was: “Important is that Entity Linking >> requires an actual mention of the >> Entity in the text while categories do not depend on such mentions. " >> >> >> -So basically wether the category is based on a SKOS DataSet or Not, this >> does not matter at all !!! >> >> -In both case they link to a dataset, it does not matter if it is SKOS based >> or not. The difference is how the entity to which we link comes up. >> >> >> >> Few questions here if you don’t mind. I’m not trying to reemployment things >> here, but simply to better understand things so i can use the tool properly. >> >> >> 1) How would the information of a specific category set be fetch ? The >> process of linking in categorisation must be different, in that you do not >> have the type to guide you. You may well end up with synonyms, without the >> type erros would occurs. I can see why using a controlled vocabulary would >> be more easy. There, the disambiguation is within the label directly. >> Would you confirm my assumption here ? That categorisation with a Skos based >> dataset (thesarus) is more easy ? >> >> 2) Is the reason for the Named Entity Recognition to limit itself to these >> three specific Type “Pertinence” ? Also would this type be customisable, >> meaning could you have a bit more types ? >> >> >> >> 3) What i want to achieve is describing some content resource according to >> schema.org. For creativeWork, it has the property “schema:about” which must >> point to a “schema:Thing”. I presume by that, google is expecting here, >> something else than a controlled Concept. I’m not saying that it is not >> possible. In the sameWay, with FOAF:Topic that i would also use, I want to >> point to the real thing rather than a control vocabulary Concept. I would >> rather use, dc:subject for the SKOS:Concept. Does it make sense? Can the >> enhancement indeed, categorise according to non-skos instance, that are in >> an external dataset? >> >> >> Many thanks, >> >> Maatari >> >> >> >> -- >> Maatari Daniel Okouya >> Sent with Airmail >> >> On 22 Sep 2014 at 06:49:14, Rupert Westenthaler >> (rupert.westentha...@gmail.com) wrote: >> >> Hi Maatari, >> >> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Maatari Daniel Okouya >> <okouy...@yahoo.fr> wrote: >>> I’m a bit confused about few concept. Could someone clarify them a bit. >>> >>> >>> When it comes to assigning some topics to a content resource, what would be >>> the difference between entity linking and categorization ? >>> >> >> First lets explain the terminology as used by Stanbol. For that I will >> use a todays headline: >> >> "Lewis Hamilton not thinking about title after winning Singapore GP" >> >> Named Entity Recognition: Detects mentions of Entity types within the >> text. Typically Persons, Organizations and Locations >> * Lewis Hamilton -> person >> * Singapore -> location >> >> Entity Linking: Detects mentions of known Entities within the processed Text >> * Lewis Hamilton -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Hamilton >> * Singapore Grand Prix -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Grand_Prix >> >> Categorization: Assigns the content to a fixed set of categories. >> Categories might be hierarchical. A typical example are the IPTC Media >> Topics [1] which I will use for this example. >> * sport -> http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/mediatopic/15000000 >> * Formula One -> http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/mediatopic/20000994 >> >> Important is that Entity Linking requires an actual mention of the >> Entity in the text while categories do not depend on such mentions. >> >>> What I see as of now, within some tools well established is the >>> classification part. Usually it makes use of a control vocabulary to >>> classify the content. Output = resource dc:Subject controledVocabularyTerm >>> >>> However, what i also see in the description of content resource online >>> within some authority website is to link the document to external non skos >>> resource via for instance the Foaf:Topic. >>> >>> In that second case, do we have both an entity linking and a classification >>> ? or is it that both are the same, it is just that the knowledge base >>> change, from external source to controlled vocabulary. Which would mean >>> that in the world of linked data, content classification / categorization >>> include entity linking? In that case i would say that, the same was >>> happening when linking to a controlled vocabulary term. >>> >> >> IMO the properties used to represent analysis results do not >> necessarily indicate if the results express linked entities or >> categorizations. Based on the definition both dc:subject and >> foaf:topic they should be both used for categories. >> >>> >>> I'm little confused here. If someone, could clarify these notion i would >>> appreciate. >> >> hope this helps >> best >> Rupert >> >> [1] http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/mediatopic >> >> -- >> | Rupert Westenthaler rupert.westentha...@gmail.com >> | Bodenlehenstraße 11 ++43-699-11108907 >> | A-5500 Bischofshofen >> | REDLINK.CO >> .......................................................................... >> | http://redlink.co/
