Re: Dataset vocabularies vs. interchange vocabularies (was: Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase)

On Wednesday 26 November 2008, John Graybeal wrote: > Do you think the argument is mostly settled, or would you agree that >   duplicating a massive set of URIs for 'local technical > simplification' is a bad practice? (In which case, is the question > just a matter of scale?) I'm a bit late to t

Re: Dataset vocabularies vs. interchange vocabularies (was: Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase)

On 27/11/2008 13:43, "Georgi Kobilarov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi John, > >> Do you think the argument is mostly settled, or would you agree that >> duplicating a massive set of URIs for 'local technical simplification' >> is a bad practice? (In which case, is the question just a matter

RE: Dataset vocabularies vs. interchange vocabularies (was: Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase)

rg; Semantic Web > Subject: Re: Dataset vocabularies vs. interchange vocabularies (was: > Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to > Freebase) > > > On Nov 19, 2008, at 5:34 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > > > Interestingly, this somewhat echo

Re: Dataset vocabularies vs. interchange vocabularies (was: Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase)

On Nov 19, 2008, at 5:34 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: Interestingly, this somewhat echoes an old argument often heard in the days of the “URI crisis” a few years ago: ““We must avoid a proliferation of URIs. We must avoid having lots of URIs for the same thing. Re-use other people's identif

Dataset vocabularies vs. interchange vocabularies (was: Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase)

On 17 Nov 2008, at 22:33, Hugh Glaser wrote: I am a bit uncomfortable with the idea of "you should use a:b from c and d:e from f and g:h from i..." It makes for a fragmented view of my data, and might encourage me to use things that do not capture exactly what I mean, as well as introducing

AW: Domain and range are useful Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

woch, 19. November 2008 14:09 > An: Pierre-Antoine Champin > Cc: Paul Gearon; Semantic Web > Betreff: Re: Domain and range are useful Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, > including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase > > > Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: > > Paul Gearon a écrit

Re: Domain and range are useful Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

Ian Davis a écrit : > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:02 AM, Tim Berners-Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > On 2008-11 -17, at 11:27, John Goodwin wrote: >> [...] >> I'd be tempted to generalise or just remove the domain/range >> restrictions. Any thou

Re: Domain and range are useful Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

On Nov 18, 2008, at 1:32 AM, Ian Davis wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:02 AM, Tim Berners-Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2008-11 -17, at 11:27, John Goodwin wrote: [...] I'd be tempted to generalise or just remove the domain/range restrictions. Any thoughts? There are lots of uses for

Re: Domain and range are useful Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

This is an interesting discussion. By coincidence, yesterday Tom Briggs [1] defended his dissertation [2] on 'Constraint Generation and Reasoning in OWL' which was done with Professor Yun Peng [3]. He started with an analysis of Swoogle's data that showed that 75% of published Semantic Web prop

Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

Hi Chris, Chris Bizer wrote: > Hi Hugh and Richard, > > interesting discussion indeed. > > I think that the basic idea of the Semantic Web is that you reuse existing > terms or at least provide mappings from your terms to existing ones. > > As DBpedia is often used as an interlinking hub

RE: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

> Regarding you arguments: > > Too tight restrictions: Which ones specifically are too > tight? If the restrictions cause inconsistencies (which they > are likely to do at the moment), then this is a signal a > problem in the DBpedia data. (Which is one of the purposes of > imposing restrict

RE: Domain and range are useful Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

Ian Davies wrote: > Again, isn't validity checking something that can only be done with OWL. RDFS only adds for > information. I think strictly speaking both OWL and RDFS only add information, but with OWL you can at least check that the information is logically consistent and use to va

Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Azamat Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 8:38 PM To: 'SW-forum' Cc: public-lod@w3.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase Monday, November 17, 2008 2:11 PM, Chris Biz

Re: Domain and range are useful Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:02 AM, Tim Berners-Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2008-11 -17, at 11:27, John Goodwin wrote: > > [...] > I'd be tempted to generalise or just remove the domain/range > restrictions. Any thoughts? > > > There are lots of uses for rand and domain. > One is in the use

Re: Domain and range are useful Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

2008/11/18 Tim Berners-Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On 2008-11 -17, at 11:27, John Goodwin wrote: > > [...] > I'd be tempted to generalise or just remove the domain/range > restrictions. Any thoughts? > > > There are lots of uses for rand and domain. > One is in the user interface -- if you for exa

Domain and range are useful Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

On 2008-11 -17, at 11:27, John Goodwin wrote: [...] I'd be tempted to generalise or just remove the domain/range restrictions. Any thoughts? There are lots of uses for rand and domain. One is in the user interface -- if you for example link a a person and a document, the system can prompt

RE: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

lod@w3.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF > links to Freebase > > > Monday, November 17, 2008 2:11 PM, Chris Bizer wrote: > 'We are happy to announce the release of DBpedia version 3.2. ... M

RE: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

Sent: Mon 17/11/2008 10:33 PM To: Richard Cyganiak Cc: public-lod@w3.org; Semantic Web; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase Very nicely put, Richard. We are opening up the discussion here of when to define one's own a

Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

Very nicely put, Richard. We are opening up the discussion here of when to define one's own and when to (re-)use from elsewhere. I am a bit uncomfortable with the idea of "you should use a:b from c and d:e from f and g:h from i..." It makes for a fragmented view of my data, and might encourage m

Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

On Nov 17, 2008, at 2:46 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: Azamat wrote: Monday, November 17, 2008 2:11 PM, Chris Bizer wrote: 'We are happy to announce the release of DBpedia version 3.2. ... More information about the ontology is found at: http://wiki.dbpedia.org/Ontology' While opening, we see the

Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

Juan Sequeda wrote: As anybody considered reusing the DBpedia ontology? Juan Sequeda, Ph.D Student Research Assistant Dept. of Computer Sciences The University of Texas at Austin http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~jsequeda [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

As anybody considered reusing the DBpedia ontology? Juan Sequeda, Ph.D Student Research Assistant Dept. of Computer Sciences The University of Texas at Austin http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~jsequeda [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.juansequeda.com/ Semantic Web in Austin: http://juansequeda.blogspot.com

Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

John, Here's an observation from a bystander ... On 17 Nov 2008, at 17:17, John Goodwin wrote: This is also a good example of where (IMHO) the domain was perhaps over specified. For example all sorts of things could have publishers, and not the ones listed here. I worry that if you reuse

Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

Azamat wrote: Monday, November 17, 2008 2:11 PM, Chris Bizer wrote: 'We are happy to announce the release of DBpedia version 3.2. ... More information about the ontology is found at: http://wiki.dbpedia.org/Ontology' While opening, we see the following types of Resource, seemingly Entity o

Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

Monday, November 17, 2008 2:11 PM, Chris Bizer wrote: 'We are happy to announce the release of DBpedia version 3.2. ... More information about the ontology is found at: http://wiki.dbpedia.org/Ontology' While opening, we see the following types of Resource, seemingly Entity or Thing: Resou

Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

John Goodwin wrote: > >> >> The semantics of range mean that you have essentially asserted that >> the range of published is [Person and Company]. If you want the >> union, you'll have to explicitly use the unionOf constructor here. > > Thanks Sean, yup that's the one. There were a few other

Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

Hello, John Goodwin wrote: > >> John's comment relates to (at least) the axioms on "publisher": >> >> The semantics of range mean that you have essentially asserted that >> the range of published is [Person and Company]. If you want the >> union, you'll have to explicitly use the unionOf con

RE: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

> John's comment relates to (at least) the axioms on "publisher": > > [[ > http://dbpedia.org/ontology/publisher";> > publisher > > > > > > >

Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

On 17 Nov 2008, at 17:00, Jens Lehmann wrote: Hello John, John Goodwin wrote: Thanks Chris and team for all your hard work getting this done. I do, however, have a few comments regarding the OWL ontology. I think in general the use of domain and range is perhaps a bit "dubious" in that

RE: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

Hi Jens, > We specified the domains and ranges as disjunctions of classes (not > intersection). See the W3C specification of owl:unionOf [1]. The version I downloaded from http://wiki.dbpedia.org/Downloads32 had all the range restrictions as owl:intersectionOf. Or rather properties like "publis

Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

Hello John, John Goodwin wrote: > > Thanks Chris and team for all your hard work getting this done. I do, > however, have a few comments regarding the OWL ontology. I think in > general the use of domain and range is perhaps a bit "dubious" in that > for many things I think it is overly specifi

Re: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

John Goodwin wrote: Have fun with the new DBpedia knowledge base! Cheers Chris Thanks Chris and team for all your hard work getting this done. I do, however, have a few comments regarding the OWL ontology. I think in general the use of domain and range is perhaps a bit "dubious" in t

RE: DBpedia 3.2 release, including DBpedia Ontology and RDF links to Freebase

> > Have fun with the new DBpedia knowledge base! > > Cheers > > Chris Thanks Chris and team for all your hard work getting this done. I do, however, have a few comments regarding the OWL ontology. I think in general the use of domain and range is perhaps a bit "dubious" in that for many thin