Azamat, I've seen enough upper-ontology-related discussions on this list to know that you'll never get agreement on a "full reclassification". And neither should you - the tight structures you've no doubt got in mind just won't be general
enough for universal use.
When we built our "map" we said "let's build something we can get all the concepts into and argue about the relationships later". The axioms are a work-in-progress. Those derived from WordNet may be a long way from perfect, but they *do* allow us to do *some* things that haven't been done before. And the hope is that the interactive nature of the wik.me site, the APIs and other "windows" into the data that we do will allow people to improve the map.
Steve
On 1 March 2011 03:46, AzamatAbdoullaev <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
WordNet is indeed a great lexical resource.
But to copy it as it is could end up with
ineffective applications, for its third level of synsets downwards ( Root:
Entity > Physical Entity [Thing, Object, Cause, Substance, Process]; Abstract
Entity [Abstraction, or Attribute: State, Time, Space, Quality, Property,
...Personality]; Thing ? is in need of full reclassification.
However strange, its middle- and ground
level collections make the strongest parts.
Azamat Abdoullaev
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 1:55
AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] the data
mining craze
> It would be interesting to see the
taxonomy, for example, ‘shape’ is the first under ‘people’.
> Thanks for
sharing this interesting service!Our pleasure, Marcia
:-) What you found is a basic categorisation that wik.me uses to group concepts - mainly for page
presentation purposes. wik.me/1 is what
you get when it can't find any concept that closely matches your
search. The real "taxonomy" is derived from WordNet - the top level
concepts can be traced directly to WordNet noun synsets. WordNet is a
fantastic resource, and this has been a common strategy. Root is
"entity" at http://wik.me/2s . I
mentioned in my first post to this forum that our aim was to create a
structure that could serve as a kind of devolved universal ontology/universal
data schema. The challenge has been to find a structure that maintains this
universality, but still offers some usefulness. What we have at the
moment has even fewer axioms than WordNet - and I'm sure we could introduce
more. It's a work-in-progress, and I'd certainly value the input of
anyone on this forum who is interested. Steve
On 28 February 2011 03:44, ZENG, MARCIA <mzeng@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I happen to find the taxonomy behind wik.me, starting from the high level:
- organization
- person
- production
- location
- event
http://wik.me/1#foundPages
At each ‘category’ there
is also a synonym ring, for example, e.g.:
Person
Of people, organism and causal
agent May also be referred to as individual,
mortal, somebody, someone and soul.
A human being; "there was too
much for one person to do".
It would be interesting to see the taxonomy,
for example, ‘shape’ is the first under ‘people’.
Thanks for sharing this
interesting service!
Marcia
Clicking the top result http://wik.me/lfn2 ("Albert Einstein") also gives you
something you can't get from Google - a self-organised presentation of
what wik.me <http://wik.me> "knows"
about Einstein. Google knows *nothing* about Einstein but where to
find pages that contain the string "Albert Einstein".
Structured data is always going to permit greater
functionality than keyword indexing. If it didn't, you and I
wouldn't have a job ;-)
But of course Google is more robust - it
would have detected your spelling mistake and given you the most-likely
valid alternative. So it should be with 2000 engineers and over a
decade of refinement.
wik.me <http://wik.me> can also only return results
based on the data it has mapped, which means it's a valid alternative to
Google for only a minority of searches. Our estimates suggest that
with all organisations, products and services in, we should give a much
better experience for around 65% of all searches currently made against
Google. That's next.
Steve
-- Stephen Young CEO @ factnexus.comArchitect @ wik.me
Founding member @ knowledgerights.org
To
Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
Stephen Young
CEO @ factnexus.com
Architect @ wik.me
Founding member @ knowledgerights.org
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|