Hi all, just seen this thread. In case it was not known or already considered
here, please see [1] as an example of how to use DOLCE-Zero foundational
patterns to revise and reorganise DBpedia ontology and data.
Best
Aldo Gangemi
[1] http://www.heikopaulheim.com/docs/iswc2015.pdf
> On 02
Hi, thanks Heiko for spotting this. BTW in the original mappings for version
3.9 those axioms were all subClassOf. Probably something has gone weird in the
versioning.
My proposal, which I made two years ago, is that, since DOLCE mappings have the
main goal to help integrity checking or top-lev
heim
> mailto:he...@informatik.uni-mannheim.de>>
> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am currently working with Aldo Gangemi on exploiting the mappings to DOLCE
> (and the high level disjointness axioms in DOLCE) for finding modeling issues
> both in the instances and the ontol
, and there
is more of course in the literature, e.g. [4][5].
Best
Aldo
[1] Nuzzolese A.G., Gangemi A., Presutti V. Encyclopedic Knowledge Patterns
from Wikipedia Page Links. Proceedings of ISWC2011, the Ninth International
Semantic Web Conference, Springer, 2011.
[2] Aldo Gangemi, Andrea Gio
Hi, I think that Peter has good reasons to complain on the current status of
the DBpedia ontology :)
But besides debatable choices on names, I’d concentrate on the main issue,
which is the data-grounding of the ontology.
The major example is that there is no systematic checking of the relation
b
Ankur, you may try one the explorative LOD visualization tools around, e.g.:
YAGO (all triples for an entity:
https://gate.d5.mpi-inf.mpg.de/webyagospotlx/SvgBrowser?entityIn=%3CIsaac_Newton%3E&codeIn=eng)
RelFinder: www.visualdataweb.org/relfinder.php (only comparatively, e.g. put
Newton and Le
Hi, this is one example of the limits in producing an ontology without
considering the full range of data that it has to provide a schema for.
See e.g. [1] for an approach of deriving "ontology patterns" from data, in
order to optimize the semantics of the ontology.
In DBpedia, one may want to e
