|
Stephen,
I still think your are doing well as the architect of wik.me.
We fully reclassified the WordNet hierarchy, and documented the product as
USECS, looking for large-scale innovative applications.
I believe it's in good line with your project, and we could exchange
views offline how we could cooperate.
Azamat
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 2:56
AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] the data
mining craze
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
|